Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 116

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big Reference Weekend

Hello all – after discussing the idea with a few members of the community, I would like to revive the WP:Big Weekend project for a new event: the Big Reference Weekend! For people who do not know about the Big Weekends, they were built on teamwork to improve or create articles of a chosen topic.

What I am suggesting is that we focus on articles in Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statements, finding suitable references for the unchecked facts, and removing as many Citation Needed tags as possible!

The project would run from Friday 19 February 11AM UTC until Monday 22 February 11AM UTC (in order to allow all timezones to benefit from the whole weekend). If you would like to contribute to the project, feel free to add a comment below saying you will participate, but of course you don't have to do so. Anyone, even ip users, can participate!

To make it easier to keep track of our efforts, I suggest that you include BW in the edit summary when you edit. This will help us count the number of edits and pages we have improved. In the next few days, I will post a further message on how to reference articles correctly. Watch this page if you are interested. All best, happy editing and I hope to see many people participate! --Yottie =talk= 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, first, Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend is the place to have this discussion. And I do have some doubts. The enthusiasm for BWs tailed off notably, and I honestly cannot see fixing pages with no sources as a hot item for most editors! Many are not capable of doing the detailed work needed to check sources and select those which suit our pages. They will probably just copy/paste whatever they find on En wiki.
    Previously, we chose topics on the basis of "here's something everyone can do", so bridges, airports, forests etc. The idea was that everyone has some of those right near them, and can put them into the wiki. Actually, about 95% or more of the editing here is on biographies and pop culture. We might think about "do five people from your country who should be better known" or some such. BWs to be popular have to tap a wide range of tastes, and be easy to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend#Big Reference Weekend 2016--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New template idea

Hello everyone. I had an idea for a new template for landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases. I put it in user space because I'd like the opinion of more seasoned editors on if the template would be useful for the encyclopedia, and if it's possible to create a "standard" list considering that a "landmark" case can be considered subjective no matter how much law scholars agree on its significance. I have not yet included all the cases that I am finding to be considered landmark, but I wanted to get a consensus before putting more effort into it. Thank you! --Lithorien (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I will give you my opinion.
I'm not the biggest fan of navboxes. Not that I don't use them. I think they're helpful when it comes to complete and well-defined set of articles like those on a big election or the history of a country – where the correlation is obvious and you could easily see a reader wanting to jump between the links.
  • On our wiki, because most of our articles are stubs, it's usually the most distracting thing on the page ("more template than article").
  • A complete, well-defined navbox is usually full of red links. Which is fine on a list, but since the sole purpose of a navigational box is navigation, then it's pretty useless.
  • If the inclusion criteria are subjective, or, worse, if you can't define any firm inclusion criteria, then the correlation between the articles is indiscriminate, potentially inexhaustible and also likely to be challenged without any possible defence. You need reliable sources to support your list and you can't do that on a navbox.
  • The last question should be: Is it going to aid navigation?
I personally don't think that somebody reading about human-rights cases is going to suddenly want to read about decisions regarding federal devolution or tax law. For people who want an outline of landmark cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, then a list article that you can scan over, with links and quick descriptions, is a good idea. But a navbox is a bare-bones, unreferenced list of links for the sole purpose of navigating between articles on a defined topic. Osiris (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to patrollers and others

The other day we had a couple of settlement articles created that I deleted because I believed they were hoaxes. They were for Glenwood, Mississippi and Chicago, Oklahoma. I couldn't find mention of these anywhere.

Be aware that people may be creating other, similar hoax articles. These can be hard to recognize, partly because we assume all settlements to be notable and we don't require much info in the article. If you see a new, minimal settlement article, you might want to verify it before patrolling it. In the process of verifying it, it would be helpful to add any references you happen upon so that others looking at the article can see that there is evidence that the place actually exists. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA/VGA criteria

I noticed just now that Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles make no mention of the simplicity of articles. Although we take this for granted (after all, it is the Simple English Wikipedia), I think it should be included in the criteria. Thoughts? --Yottie =talk= 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include such a rule. Since this is the simple English Wikipedia, articles are supposed to be either simple per definition or they should be tagged as complex, respectively be deleted as needed. That's like we'd include a rule like "the article needs to be written in English" or "the article needs to be written in Latin alphabet". I guess we aren't going to promote an article written in Chinese using Cyrillic alphabet. -Barras talk 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that makes sense. It was only a thought :) --Yottie =talk= 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I raised a similar issue, it was pointed out that requirement #8 for GAs (#9 for VGAs) covers this where it says thst not only should the article not have any maintenance templates, it should also not need any. --Auntof6 (talk)

Definition of Simple – Wordlists

Sorry for spamming Simple Talk, but I have a lot of ideas coming to mind at the moment. I was wondering, when writing articles, we should be using the wordlists (WP:BE850 and WP:BE1500). But is BE1500 simple? Or is only BE850 simple? Of course, we should try to use mostly BE850, but often this is not possible and we must use BE1500 or link complex words. Maybe there is a page somewhere which explains what words we can use, without links, but I do not know of it. What is simple enough to use without a link? BE850 only, or also BE1500? Also, should we prefer a more complex (but more appropriate word) with a link, or a simple (but less appropriate word) without a link? For example, I see pages with the word wealthy with a link, when we could use rich (which is on the BE1500) without a link. What do you think is better? --Yottie =talk= 12:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yottie: I'm not completely sure that this is what you are looking for, but there's a guideline that talks about what wordlists to use and when to use them, as well as when to link more complex but more appropriate words. I hope that can help answer some of your questions. --Lithorien (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that does say, in a way, that it is better to use first BE850, then BE1500 and then link a word. I will edit accordingly. Thank you --Yottie =talk= 14:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Might work for biographies, but many subjects require other words to be accurate. Accuracy is primary for any encyclopedia.
In any event, we seem powerless to insist upon a wider use of simpler English, however it is defined. Look at the pages with medical content. Editors evidently feel no shame in leaving us articles which would be difficult even for medical students. It is almost impossible to re-edit these articles in a suitable way. They are pitched too much with completeness in mind rather than comprehension, and contain details of treatment which only a practising physician needs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the objective should be for articles to be both precise and simple, correct? If it is possible to use a simpler word, without affecting the meaning too much, then I assume that is what we should do. If it is not possible to convey an idea in simpler terms, then links may be used. But the general idea is to focus on BE850, and then BE1500. If articles are not using simple terms or links, then they should not be on Simple English Wikipedia.--Yottie =talk= 14:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken articles

It used to be the case that spoken articles were uploaded here (as per Template:Local file). I have recorded a new one for Le Spectre de la Rose (a VGA), but am unable to upload it because I am no longer an administrator. Has our policy changed regarding such files? Is there any way that I can upload it here without admin rights? --Yottie =talk= 22:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if that has changed. However, I could give you (temp) uploader rights here to upload the file. -Barras talk 22:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just need it for a few minutes, that would be great. I will notify when I've uploaded it. (you will probably see RC anyway) --Yottie =talk= 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if I'm gonna be killed for doing that. Go ahead, Yottie :) -Barras talk 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it doesn't work. It is restricted to Administrators. You can remove the rights now. We might have to think of another way. --Yottie =talk= 23:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could technically grant +sysop, but that would be even more abusive. Either a crat gives you the mop for a few minutes or upload it to commons? -Barras talk 23:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I won't break the wiki, but out of principle I don't want you to get into trouble. Up to you, but I think the Spoken Articles should be uploaded locally rather than on Commons. --Yottie =talk= 23:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I was just told that the uploader right works only when we also have the right locally, which isn't the case. However, +sysop via meta would be too abusive, it's confirmation time, and I already gave people more than enough reasons to oppose me. :P -Barras talk 23:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will ask a Bureaucrat. --Yottie =talk= 23:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual request, but given that your sysop flag was originally removed due to inactivity, I guess it is not a big issue to grant it to you again for a few minutes for uploads. Let me know anytime you are ready to upload. Chenzw  Talk  01:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this happened because of this request, which I guess was an opt-out process which got largely overlooked. We got put on this list which resulted in this. I wasn't around at the time. The banner on Special:Upload is still saying audio uploads are okay (not that it matters I guess since it's invisible). Osiris (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run, we cannot rely on +sysop for local uploads, and I don't think we should ask other administrators to upload on behalf of editors - it may lead to issues with licensing and attribution. I will poke around the relevant documentation and see what we need to do (MediaWiki:Licenses is one of them) before filing an issue on Phabricator to re-enable uploads. Chenzw  Talk  10:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about a new Uploaders group? Couldn't we discuss that possibility? --Yottie =talk= 10:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'D simply make a poll to create the local upload group here and give that to people as needed. Better than enabling uploads here, imo. -Barras talk 10:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops my bad, I wasn't quite clear. I meant enabling the Uploaders group on this wiki, and granting the necessary rights to the group. Can this be done by stewards or must it be done by a developer? Chenzw  Talk  11:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the uploaded a should have sysop rights for uploading, and maybe page deleting for if they accidentally upload something. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 12:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: Stewards can do that, however, it would certainly be easier to make crats (or admins) able to grant/remove the right here locally as stewards would require a local discussion first to act on (well, most, I'd just grant it when needed, but I'm a bad example, you know). @PokestarFan: No need for giving deletion right. One can add {{delete}}, just like with articles. -Barras talk 20:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be nice if admins could issue the right. Also, I wish there was a thing where any feature could be granted by sysop, but with a timer. For example, I could get the Checkuser for 10 minutes in an event of edit war through users and IPs. Once 10 minutes was over, I would automatically be demoted becak to normal status.PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PokestarFan: There's a lot more to who's allowed to have rights than you're aware of. There are not only procedural issues, but legal ones as well. That's why it takes bureaucrats, not admins, to give certain rights, and bureaucrats have to understand the Wikimedia Foundations rules about giving the rights and about using them. Checkuser is possibly the most sensitive right there is. It is not given lightly, and it would not be granted temporarily in the way you suggest. Besides that, I don't see how checkuser would be relevant for edit warring. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Privacy related rights can not be granted by bureaucrats but only by stewards. Also rights like checkuser or oversight may only be used in a temporary manner by stewards. Those rights are far more complicated and governed by special global policies. -Barras talk 22:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was just an example. It really doesn't mean that it will ever happen. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 22:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Barras and Chenzw: Shall we have a vote on this, then? Would the rights be obtained by a Request for Permissions, like Rollback, etc?--Yottie =talk= 11:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an agreement that we want the upload right with the ability to upload files to this project and by whom it can be granted/removed. With that, we can create a ticket and have it set. Everything else can be decided the we the wiki wants it. Maybe make a separate thread for the !vote as this will be easier for the devs to follow up. -Barras talk 15:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage search

Hi, I have a question. I have so many subpages from my User Page that it is crazy. Is there a way to list and/or search all of my subpages? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can be found here. In future, please ask questions on my user talk page, or on your own, where I will be able to see it. --Yottie =talk= 00:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PokestarFan: See this section of my user page, where I have code that lists all the current subpages of my user and user talk pages. It doesn't have to be manually updated. Feel free to steal the code for your page. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia donation survey


I don't expect much from this, but wanted to toss this out there. After my yearly donation to Wikipedia, I came onto a survey. One of the questions was as follows.

Q: Would you be interested in any of the following options? Select all that apply.

  • Receiving reading suggestions from Wikipedia or your friends
  • Liking or sharing what you're reading with others on social media
  • Seeing a score for how accurate an article is
  • Reading simplified articiles for complex topics
  • other

Let's keep up the good work. We may be building something really good here. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 05:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, a random Gordonrox24 appeared. And now a random CR90 has appeared. *waves* Hi. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking community consensus to use sitenotice

As most of the active participants here (at Simple talk) know, we have a Big Weekend planned this coming weekend. On the talk page for that event, I asked if there was a way to put a notice at the top of the screen that our semi-active members (and those who simply don't visit Simple talk) might see, which would notify them of the "Big Weekend" event. The reply suggests that we need community consensus to use the "sitenotice" feature for this notification. (For those who don't know, the "sitenotice" feature allows a message to show up on the top of every page of the wiki. It stays there until you close it.) The message can only be placed or edited by an administrator. This message would only show up for those who are using Simple, other projects wouldn't see it. (If you remember the announcement about steward elections, or some of the fundraising messages that have appeared in the past, this would work in a similar fashion: click the close button and the message stops showing up on pages you open from the same device.) So this is where I ask the community for input on this proposal. Please keep in mind that we probably need to move pretty quickly, and there will be no reason for the sitenotice to remain after the "Big Weekend" event is over. Etamni | ✉   08:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the coordinators for this project, I am biased of course, but I like the idea. The Big Weekend is open to everyone, even ip editors, so it would make sense to advertise it to get as much help as possible. --Yottie =talk= 11:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A site notice might be helpful otherwise, a watchlist notice, only for logged in user would also be an idea. I'm not sure if it actually needs real consensus. In fact, it should be used sparingly as a general thing, however, looking at how often global notices are used nowadays, I'd go by with a "get a bold admin and use it" for a project of this size. -Barras talk 15:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing no objections after 24 hours, I would request that one of our admin-type people go ahead and boldly edit the sitenotice page to add an announcement about the Big Weekend. (I'd do it myself, but the page has full protection.) I think the notice should go up immediately so that those who might visit only occasionally have a better chance of seeing it. Etamni | ✉   09:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Anybody should feel free to change it if they're able or request a change. The alignment of the box seems a little off on my screen. Osiris (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks off to me too. Could it be because of the close link? Chenzw  Talk  11:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that's probably what it is. Doesn't account for it I guess. Osiris (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting the notice posted! It's not centered on my screen either; and yeah, the close button is probably responsible for that.... Etamni | ✉   18:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine on my browser. I guess it must depend? --Yottie =talk= 18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured again

I seem to remember that the last occurrence wasn't that long ago, but in either case, we have been linked to on reddit again. Vandalism rate appears to be quite normal still, but it would be good to keep an eye on RC more during the next 1-2 days. Chenzw  Talk  13:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have just read all the comments (919 at the moment). For the most part they are respectful and appreciative. Someone actually came and made an improvement to an article after reading it. Mostly people are amazed that they can understand our science articles, whereas not on English Wikipedia. Someone mentioned that they now understood Iliad, so maybe they should read the plot for Primer (movie). Also, Schrödinger's cat and Quantum mechanics were appreciated. It makes me proud to be a Simple editor and creator. Many remarked about how many articles we are missing when they searched, hoping to find a simple version. Some mentioned donating just because of us. Hugs and paw pats all around to us ツ Fylbecatulous talk 19:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am looking for opinions about the page Alcoholism. With all due respect to the original editor(s), I'm not sure this article is completely accurate. The "Stages" section is unreferenced, and makes a number of unverified claims. Regarding the "Types of Alcoholics" section, theories that alcoholics can be classified into multiple "subtypes" are controversial and were never generally accepted (see for example "Medication Treatment of Different Types of Alcoholism" from the American Journal of Psychiatry (2010) at The three sets of "subtypes" listed in this section are from 1960, 1981, and 1992. Those are very old theories for an article on alcoholism.

This is such an important topic that I would like to make some changes, but removing unsourced material, and possibly updating the "Types of Alcoholism" section, would be a drastic edit. I don't feel like it's fair for me to do that just because I don't think the article is accurate, without having some other folks' opinions.

I also don't think all the language in this article is "simple"... just my $0.02. Thoughts? Fuhvah (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those interested, please discuss on the article's talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PokestarFan - exhaustion of patience

While good intentioned in edits, PokestarFan seems to be at the point of exhaustion of community patience. The amount of notices and talking to that admins and other users have had to put onto his talk page in the last days/weeks is just too much. I think it's come to a point where a block is needed. He is blocked indefinitely on the English Wikipedia, so WP:ONESTRIKE is in play here. We cannot keep having to monitor and police the edits every day. Again, a large number of edits are good work, but far too many slipups are occurring in a short span. I came very close to "pulling the trigger" myself today, but think community discussion is the more appropriate route. Only (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics for PokestarFan (31.5% mainspace edits, 52.2% userspace edits, 11.5% wikipedia space edits, 4.8% other) --Lithorien (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In response to this, here's my question: Should a person who is trying their best, and who responds as best as they can to corrections, be punished because they are taking more guidance to learn than other editors would? I would argue absolutely not. PokestarFan and I have had a few disagreements, as well as many others. And sometimes it has taken him some time to learn better behavior. The thing is, I don't see his bad behavior continuing once he understands what he is doing wrong. Is there is question of competence here? Absolutely. But going from a 24 hour block to an indef because of the single strike policy on unrelated issues seems too harsh to me. He is editing in good faith and trying his best. At worst, I would suggest a short-term community ban of 1-3 months with a condition that upon return, he has to demonstrate that he has read (and show his understanding of) the rules. --Lithorien (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't really be going from a 24-hour block to an indef. The two are separate things. We would still be having this discussion if the block hadn't happened. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Oh, I understand that this discussion would still be happening. What I mean to say is that we started down the road of giving a short block (which implies that he'll be treated like any other editor with blocks of increasing time if he can't fix his behavior), and this proposal wants to go straight to indef under onestrike. That's what my issue is - we've been acting one way towards him, and now there's the potential that we'll act totally different. I'm not saying that is wrong, I'm just saying that I disagree with it. --Lithorien (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I agree that some of the editor's edits are annoying, I would hesitate to consider them disruptive, and would hold back on any block at this moment. However, I am not opposed to an extended topic/interaction block, where PokestarFan is banned from anything which is not mainspace content editing, or essential edits on project-space pages. It seems that he should focus more on the main purpose of this project, which is maintaining an encyclopedia. Chenzw  Talk  16:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave him such a topic ban earlier, before I saw this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The point is he does seem to have good intentions. Yes, it seems from the tenor of the messages on his talk page that he has been exhausting the patience of some here. One of PokestarFan's apparent knee-jerk reactions is that when someone tells him not to do something, he tries something else. There are two schools of thought here. One is our time is valuable (we are so few) we cannot waste time with those who do not adapt here quickly enough. The second is that by patiently working with new editors who need it, it can have the effect of becoming a force multiplier. Maybe collectively we could do a bit more before blocking him permanently. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How much more would we need to collectively do? He seems to learn some of the details, but not in terms of the big picture. When issues are pointed out, he usually stops doing that thing that was the issue, but he finds new problematic things to do. If he would agree to work under supervision, I might agree. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a volunteer to mentor him. If he hasn't been asked already, ask him if he's agreeable. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on GP and for the same reasons given by the editors above. I do agree with the topic ban on policies, guidelines, help files, etc. that Auntof6 imposed on the editor. (If the user sees a mistake in those, or has a suggestion to improve the wording, this can be mentioned directly to an admin to get it corrected). Etamni | ✉   20:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least a more restrictive topic ban. PokestarFan agreed to work with the mentor, but he is going outside the things they agreed to work on. He is doing things like this and this. At this point, I support a topic ban limiting PokestarFar to talk pages and his own userspace unless otherwise okayed by either his mentor or an admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now support an indefinite ban. PokestarFan has now posted retirement banners on his user and user talk pages. That leaves us with a user who may or may not really be retired, who still has two active topic bans (each of which was broken once, resulting in blocks), and who didn't keep his commitment to work with his mentor, User:Yottie. Yottie and User:Lithorien put in significant work to try to help him, and he has abandoned that effort without, as far as I can tell, showing any appreciation. In accordance with WP:ONESTRIKE, I now support an indefinite ban as well as deletion of all pages in his userspace (there are many) except the main user and user talk pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reluctantly have to agree. As much as it hurts to say, I don't think he truly cares to learn to improve himself. I support an indefinite ban on him. --Lithorien TalkChanges 02:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because placing the banners did not violate any of the current bans. I reviewed the decision to indef him on EnWiki, and find that the reason for the indef was based on having just a handful of mainspace edits compared to over 200 userspace edits. (Indeed, the person who raised the issue on the admin noticeboard was criticized for even bringing the issue, and it does not appear that there was actually any consensus before an admin indef-banned him there.) So WP:ONESTRIKE does not apply. Traditionally, it is bad form to heap additional punishment on a person after previously punishing them for a particular offense. The topic ban violations were addressed with temporary blocks; it would not be appropriate to increase the punishment for those transgressions. So that leaves us with banning him simply because he wasn't thankful of the efforts of others. His mentors are free, of course, to end that relationship, but in my opinion, a new ban is not appropriate. (One other consideration is that we don't know why he placed the retirement banner on the page. There may have been considerations beyond his control that led to this action, such as parental decisions.) Etamni | ✉   02:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(I have unbolded your "Oppose" because you already "voted" above.) No one is saying that placing the banners violated anything -- the banners are not at issue, and I apologize if I made it sound like they are. Although we are free to ignore "onestrike" if we choose, it does apply because he is banned elsewhere, whatever the reason. The topic ban violations aren't even really at issue, either: if they were, PokestarFan could have been indef'd at those times instead of having topic bans imposed. The reason for this proposal is the disruption that PokestarFan caused: that started before there were any topic bans, mentor, or game. The only reason this discussion stopped was that PokestarFan agreed to work with a mentor to improve. He has now apparently gone back on that promise, so we should go forward with the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: it was not my intent for the above comment to be seen as a second oppose !vote, but rather I oppose applying WP:ONESTRIKE in this circumstance.) Etamni | ✉   07:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ban on the above grounds. Aside from what Etamni mentioned, I think it will be better for the flow of the discussion if this is placed under a separate section header. The original ban discussion petered out at around the same time the mentorship was proposed (and accepted); considering the votes at that time, the editor was deemed (at that time) to not need a ban, but maybe with mentorship and topic bans, which have been implemented. Fast forward to today, I see only topic ban violations (which have been addressed by blocks) and a declaration of retirement. I also can't see how ONESTRIKE might be implemented here; is abandoning your mentorship considered disruptive? Chenzw  Talk  03:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't think we should be trying to scare away editors. Although I completely see the point that is made, and find it very frustrating myself, I think that with a certain amount of mentoring, PokerstarFan would be able to contribute positively to this project. If that does not go accordingly to plan, then we can take further action. Although I have no real experience in mentoring users, I think I have been around here long enough to answer any questions he may have, so I would be happy to volunteer and be a mentor. --Yottie =talk= 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an idea. I think maybe I can get assigned a set of several articles, and my goal is to improve them. I like games, and for others, I could do some research on Google. Problems start to come when I am trying to fix things, such as vandalism. Maybe one I have improved ~25-50 articles I could get a sort of fresh start? PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 18:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this reminds me of a RfD. Opposes and support and comments everywhere. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, can I not put some humor into it?
Best not -- it doesn't help your case. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(side note)The user self-identifies as male on his user page, so you can use male pronouns/adjectives/adverbs when referring to this user. :) Etamni | ✉   20:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed that some of PokestarFan's work appears to have been hurried. By this, I mean that he edits something and goes on to the next thing, without fully proofreading his own work. My suggestion to him would be to just slow down and take a deep breath. Proofread his work and imagine he is seeing it for the first time. Also, don't change the same thing over and over in multiple articles unless everyone has agreed that it needs to be changed. Etamni | ✉   20:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After seeing more and more bad edits, I issued a new topic ban to PokestarFan. He is now allowed to edit only where either his mentor or an admin has approved. I approved him to edit in his userspace and on talk pages. Every time he is asked not to do something, he seems to try something else to test our limits. I, for one, am tired of it. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watching from afar for the most part here, I'm willing to support Only with a block here, even if for just 6 months to allow the user to take some time to reflect and grow. When you've got to implement multiple topic bans, at some point you've unfortunately just got to say enough is enough and take an action. I appreciate Yottie's offer to mentor and answer questions, however I think other editors, User:Auntof6 in particular, have already extended that offer and have still encountered issues. We've seen this before, where an editor has good intentions but isn't fully ready to be apart of writing an encyclopedia, and I think taking some time off may be in the project's best interests.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to put in a note here. Yottie and I are working together on a program for PokestarFan to assist him in learning how to edit well. Please give us a chance to present it to him and let him go through it (or reject it - his choice) before making a final decision on him. We think we have found something that will appeal to him, and would like a chance to try. If he still can't or won't learn after that, then I'll be willing to support a ban per Only. --Lithorien TalkChanges 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you -- that sounds like a good idea. If it isn't too specific to this user, maybe it's something we could use with other editors as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm all for giving this a shot.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the idea, for me anyway. I took inspiration for it from a suggestion that Yottie made, and combined it with a video game tutorial kind of process. I'd like to end up generalizing it as a sort of, "Hey, welcome to Wikipedia, would you like to play a short game to learn how to edit here," sort of thing. As it is right now, though, it's too specific to PokestarFan to use generally yet. If you want details, feel free to send me an email and I'll reply with more specifics. --Lithorien TalkChanges 01:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There might be something you can use in the Wikipedia:Student tutorial. However, most of that tutorial is mechanics, and that's not the area where PokestarFan needs the most work. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. Ok. It is all mechanics, but I love how it's laid out. That's very easy to follow along with and navigate. I can use that. Thank you! --Lithorien TalkChanges 02:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Class project

Just a reminder for everyone that a class project has started. Information can be found at Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/Body Systems Project. Students have already started making edits to some of the articles, and this will continue through March 7, 2016. Etamni | ✉   23:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured February... in March!

Hello everyone – now that the Big Reference Weekend is over (thank you to all the people who helped), I would like to mention an idea Only had back in 2013 (I think), and which was mentioned once again in 2014 but simply forgotten after that. A short outline, of what was to be called Featured February, can be found here. It was meant to be in February, but I am suggesting we have it in March, this year, instead (February is almost finished...).

The project is focused on creating and improving articles on the Simple English Wikipedia which are featured (very good) articles on the English Wikipedia. Like the Big Weekend, it does not require any signup, or any guaranteed participation. You are free to take part or not, but every edit helps. Because it is longer, it means you can take your time to work.

If people are interested, I'm wondering whether we could create a project page. There is no prize, no glory, but teamwork and cooperation are encouraged. You can create short articles from the long ones on the English Wikipedia, or you can copy the article to your userspace and work on it there. The objective is to make this wikipedia better, by using some of the best articles on ENWP. Any thoughts are very welcome. --Yottie =talk= 12:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea for a March project. Making it better in March??? --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea. Instead of tracking by going through recent changes as we do for the big weekends, maybe we could just have a list: when you create a qualifying article, add it to the list. Next year, though, let's have it in February: "Featured February" has such a nice ring to it! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I came up with that title myself. It does have a certain ring to it :) and I agree that some sort of subpage would be a good idea. If I get some time in coming days I'll put up some ideas. Only (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
to add a suggestion: I think it would serve us well to also spend the month reexamining our current list of GAs and VGAs to update then. Yottie, was it you who pointed out that one of our VGAs is tagged for update? Definitely should address that. And we should also put some time into approving or rejecting current nominations as well. Only (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a review of all GAs/VGAs, at some point, yes. I think I pointed out Daniela Hantuchova was tagged, indeed. I suspect some of the other VGAs need updating, too. As for the featured March, should the subpage be in the wikipedia namespace or userpace (do we have a policy on this?).--Yottie =talk= 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about a page to list the created articles, I think the list should be in the Wikipedia namespace. Actually, I don't know why it needs to be a subpage, unless it gets to be very long, but even then we could make it scrollable or make it so that there are "show" and "hide" links to click on to see or hide the list. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Subpage was probably the wrong word. What I mean is a page to coordinate the project (like WP:BW). --Yottie =talk= 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about the creation of Wikipedia:Featured February and use the talk page there to coordinate the project? --Yottie =talk= 10:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page. It may be best to continue the discussion over there! --Yottie =talk= 14:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News #1—2016

Elitre (WMF), 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for profanity warning in the sandboxes.

Can we have a line like this in order to warn people not to add profanity to the sandboxes?

<!-- Feel free to change the text below this line. No profanity, please. --> Thanks. //nepaxt 02:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is currently being handled by abuse filter 64. However, it seems to have a nasty habit of disabling itself "as a safety measure" - I will take a look again some time to see what's going on. This filter is set to warn only. Chenzw  Talk  02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is sort of the point of the sandbox. To give them somewhere to get their need to make that kind of post out of their system. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template needs update

The "orphan template" has had two problems identified on Template talk:Orphan, does someone who knows how to fix them want to have a look.--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


On a related matter, I've just noticed that the English Wikipedia decided to diminish the use of the orphan template in early 2014. The tag is now invisible except when the |date= parameter is set to either the current or the previous month. I know that there has been previously a lot of debate about the use of the orphan template here. Would hiding them be something we should consider?

The technical aspects are a bit beyond me, since they involve Lua modules. But it'd really just involve copying the code from over there. It'd be even easier, from a technical perspective, and perhaps more appropriate to a smaller wiki, if they were hidden no matter what. That can be done without modules, and editors would still be able to add the "tag" using Twinkle.

Another idea that they explored over there was to move orphan tags to the talk pages. The only issue with that is that people won't be able to tag with Twinkle.

Any thoughts? Osiris (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could even consider not using the template at all. If we want to find orphans, we can look at Special:LonelyPages. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's an option as well. I just think that it's not really something that readers need to know, so the tags are not really serving much of a purpose. Osiris (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have been removing them for years in a lot of cases. It is a template that is rarely useful as they can use the special page or the fact that it is marked a stub to know it probably needs more linking. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, not needed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader rights

Per the previous discussion on uploading Spoken articles to this page, I would like to suggest a new uploaders group. Currently, file uploads are restricted to administrators only (mostly because we do not accept most images here), but this means that regular editors cannot upload spoken articles without being granted the admin rights temporarily. My suggestion would be to allow administrators (or bureaucrats?) to give the uploader rights on request (similar to a request for rollback rights). For this we need consensus, which is why I am starting this discussion. Please could you leave your opinion in the appropriate section below. Thank you, --Yottie =talk= 15:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • K. I think maybe a temp grant though, rather than a permanent permission, because apart from the upload you did the other day, Yot, the last legitimate uploads were in 2012. Osiris (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support putting it through a process like RfU (Request for Uploader). Given that the ability to upload requires the trust of the community, it should go through a process to show that the community does actually trust the person asking. --Lithorien TalkChanges 16:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a permanent permission as being necessary. Since the start of 2010, there have been 159 uploads – just 13 of them, from what I can tell, were legitimately allowed under local policy, and only 2 of those were by users who didn't hold the administrator right at the time. Given the infrequency of uploads, I think we can easily avoid the time-wasting that comes with the frivolous requests we get at RFP by just giving it out on request (at WP:AN or wherever) and then removing it after the uploads are made. Osiris (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow adding/removing by admins. Use it temp upon simple request and need. -Barras talk 16:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support having the uploaders group, but managing it the way we do the flood flag: user requests it, does their upload(s), then it's removed. If a user has multiple files to upload, they can get a bunch ready to do all at once while they have the ability. If that becomes burdensome, then at a later time we can discuss giving the ability for longer periods. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In view of the discussion above and in the Comments section below, I support enabling this right on Simple. I think that in general, it should work similarly to the flood flag -- being turned on and off as needed. If one particular user finds an interest in recording and uploading spoken versions of articles, I would support having a process where the community confirms enabling the uploader right on an indef basis for that user, subject to removal if the user discontinues using it, or becomes completely inactive for some particular period of time. Naturally, it could also be removed if a user was uploading inappropriate files. As a related matter, there should be a defined set of quality standards for recorded articles, and a specific process to remove those that don't meet the standards (probably via RfD). Etamni | ✉   18:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think community approval needs to come into it. We don't have community approval for Rollbacker or Patroller rights, either, and those mostly work fine. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. After further consideration, I have struck through part of my previous comment. Our project is small enough that we probably don't need to over-complicate the process. Simple is best! Etamni | ✉   22:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on a similar basis as the Flood Flag, on a case by case basis, when requested, and only as long as it is needed to complete the task. This should be issued by an admin, no need for a long drawn out process here, and no need to have this as a long term right. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment. I have a few concerns with the audio files I listened to. First only one speaker spoke at what I would call a slow pace. It is easy to speak too fast for those new to the English language and/or children. Also, there seems to be no requirement to explain words not in Basic English. The guideline is at Enwiki and not adjusted for this project. Then, there is a speaker's accent to consider (I know, everyone else has an accent). Is it possible that an editor requesting this right be asked to provide a sample reading with their request? Is anyone willing to work on a guideline for those who want to create audio files? Thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern, but I do not think we can limit the Spoken Articles to only certain people. All I would suggest is that we have a policy/Guideline which states that articles must be read slowly. For instance, on my most recent recording (File:Simple English Le Spectre de la rose.ogg) I made a conscious effort to speak slowly and clearly. If it is still too fast, next time I will speak even more slowly. --Yottie =talk= 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was too fast in this instance. But speaking slowly would be something to emphasize in a guideline, perhaps even providing audio samples. I still have a concern that articles should explain linked words, however. User:Rus793 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  (change conflict)  I am all for the idea, but I would also like to see if the community finds a need for an inactivity clause to go along with our local uploader policy. Do editors keep membership in this user group indefinitely? I am not sure that an ever-growing list of uploaders will be a good idea. Chenzw  Talk  16:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like I spent too much time typing my previous comment, and since the rights duration issue has been brought up during that time, I want to add on by saying that, in keeping with the original policy that this wiki does not allow media uploads of any kind (except for spoken articles, and exceptions listed in the image use policy), we should not be giving the idea that editors get to "keep" the uploader flag. Sysops don't even upload anything on this wiki. The issue of "hat-collecting" has been brought up many times when it comes to rollback and patroller, and I don't think we should allow uploader to go down that road. In fact, activity requirements for uploader have to be significantly stricter; I personally would like to see wiki contributions which indicate an editor who is likely to stay on this wiki. Should it be granted and then removed (per upload), or should it be something that is granted for a set time (a few months, or maybe a year)? Chenzw  Talk  16:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Depending on how we want it to be obtained (via RfU/simply admins granting it/granting, but only on a case by case basis and removing when not needed), I guess the answer is: it depends. But maybe we could say that if someone wants the rights, they must record a Spoken Article (preferably a GA/VGA) and be ready to submit it if their request is successful? And then if they wish to maintain it, they must record a certain number of articles per month (3? More?) or else they have to give the right up. It could be done on a 3-monthly/6-monthly basis, with a review after that period (basically to check whether in each individual month, enough Spoken Articles were submitted). --Yottie =talk= 16:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One big problem with audio files is that they date, sometimes quite rapidly. This is because changes continue on the page. We all know the wiki can't update the files routinely as it has too few experienced editors. Another thing to remember is that most pages have a hit rate about 50 to 100 times lower than corresponding articles in English wiki (I know because I sampled the statistics). Of the users who do read the page, few would need to hear the sound recording. It is not a sensible use of scarce time to do more than upload a few files occasionally. Therefore we do not need any special mechanism or permission. Files should be checked for quality, and uploads done by 'crats IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a bit of a rigmarole... What purpose does it serve? And how are people going to send the files? Yottie's last upload was almost 30 MB – the standard size limit for most email providers is 10 MB (on Outlook I think it's 20 MB). Are you saying I have to bother a bureaucrat every time I want to upload something, even though I already hold the technical permission? We're only talking about uploads here. The rule was that any registered user could upload until we suddenly noticed they couldn't – and that's still the case on most wikis that allow local uploads and a few that don't. It's also still our policy (WP:IUP). Osiris (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see I wasn't clear. Personally, I think there should be a quality filter, with uploads done by someone we trust. There should no special status of "uploader". Mops would do, or rollbackers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that exactly what a separate "uploader" permission achieves? It's only given to users who we deem trustworthy. And even better, only for the time it takes the user to upload the file(s). If a spoken article file is unsuitable, then it shouldn't be used. But that comes under editorial discretion, subject to the consensus of all editors. We don't have veto power on editorial content. And what about the exceptions outlined under the image use policy, like screenshots? Why should a user need to send a copy of an image to an administrator or rollbacker so that it can be uploaded?
Are you suggesting bundling the upload permission into the rollback permission? Osiris (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many rollbackers on this wiki, even less so who are active editors. For a wiki which does not typically allow media uploads, granting upload permission to the rollbacker user group is too wide-reaching. Chenzw  Talk  14:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me approach this from a slightly different angle. Audio files are not images, and the sound files on Commons are usually not appropriate for us (those that are can be placed by any editor). Our spoken files need to speak our text, not the often very complicated English wiki text. Also, as mentioned above, they need to be well spoken in a standard version of English with good diction. Therefore they need to be mediated, not uploaded direct by individual editors. I should think the person(s) involved would need to be able to guide users as to the software for both recording and playing. Primarily their role would be to see that the proposed files were intelligible and appropriate for the intended page. The difference between sound files and the usual written prose is that normal text can be adjusted in detail, whereas a file would need to be placed and replaced en bloc. That is why it needs supervision, and is not just a matter for individual editors. If we decide to have this done by just a few people, they should be drawn from our already existing levels of administration (from rollbacker upwards). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we need to check a sound file before it's uploaded? We don't check articles before they're created. We could check each file after creation, just as we can do with text. We might want a new qd option or two for sound files, or we might just need to adjust the existing options so that they apply to recordings. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get why spoken article files need to be coherent. But that's still an issue for the article space, not uploads. If it's unintelligible or inappropriate, any editor can revert the edit that added the file to the article. The upload itself is not harming anything by simply existing in the file namespace. That's how it's always been – if I'm understanding correctly, you're suggesting a totally new policy whereby audio files must be approved by a user with the rollback permission before they can be uploaded. Does that mean that you want to see the upload permission bundled into the rollback permission? Because I agree with Chenzw – that's almost like giving it out to everybody. How are the files to be transferred between users? Spoken articles are not the only reason a user needs to be able to upload. The current policy is that users can upload screenshots locally to demonstrate technical issues. Osiris (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a possibility that we will have a new editor who has barely made edits, to randomly ask for uploader permission to upload a spoken article. The topic of spoken articles could be something relatively unknown even to some of our existing editors. I suspect that we will have more of a problem with no spoken articles than poor spoken articles. I foresee that the only time administrators (or whoever ultimately is authorized to) give out the flag is when an established editor decides to record a spoken version of the article, and upload it. For a wiki which does not allow uploads, I would say that the uploader permission is for convenience with regards to technical limitations (sending of the file from one user to another), and possibly to avoid issues with attribution. Chenzw  Talk  10:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, this is not something I want to go to the stake over. But I did write "The difference between sound files and the usual written prose is that normal text can be adjusted in detail, whereas a file would need to be placed and replaced en bloc." A sound file is not the same thing as a text edit or a new article. But if the majority think this is of no consequence, then go ahead and do what you think is right. We'll see how it transpires. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This discussion has been open for a week. Most people seem to agree it wouldn't harm the wiki to be able to give the upload rights. I think most people think it would be best done given by an admin, on a temporary basis (like the flood flag). I'm not sure how we take it from here, but there definitely seems to be support for the uploader rights. --Yottie =talk= 22:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See phab:T127826 -Barras talk 12:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The configuration change is now live on this wiki. Chenzw  Talk  16:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This has been now technically done (see Special:ListGroupRights). I've also added it to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Front matter but Wikipedia:Uploaders page needs to be updated. --Glaisher (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with some parts blatantly copied from WP:FLOOD. Currently the only selectable license is CC-BY-SA-3.0. If there's a demand for other licenses (CC-0, or CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL dual licensing), they can be added to that MediaWiki page. Chenzw  Talk  16:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I missed this discussion, but is there any reason these audio files are not being uploaded to commons instead? They are after all free media files so belong there. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: I think the intent is for these to be spoken versions of Simple articles. Certainly, if someone records an audio file of something with a more general audience, that file would belong on Commons. Etamni | ✉   13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but that is how similar things are handled on other wiki's, they just title the file and put in the description that it is a spoken version of the Simple English article. Really the whole point of no upload policy was to move all free media file hosting to commons precisely for the reason we don't want to have to administer it like this. I mean it is a done deal now so doesn't really matter, but that is how it should have happened. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of adding the uploader group was to be in line with our current policy of uploading spoken articles here and not on Commons. This does not stop us from having a discussion on our current policy. Feel free to start a new topic, in that case, regarding the change of policy. (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well my point was, that our policy as it currently sits says we shouldn't be uploading them here. We use commons for file hosting, that has long been policy. That some spoken word articles were uploaded against that policy is an entirely separate matter. Although I suppose it could be argued since someone changed the wording of the upload page years ago that it is now consensus per silence. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what policy you are referring to. There is certainly much evidence to support spoken articles have been uploaded locally, and that this has been policy since 2006-07. I agree that policy for pictures/certain sound files changed around that time, but I don't see how this was the case for spoken articles. --Yottie =talk= 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for people with medical conditions

I would like to discuss the categorisation of people by "mental disorder". On a wiki of this size, it presents real problems in terms of adherance to WP:BLP policies. Our small base of editors cannot possibly hope to cope with the added maintenance that these categories create.

In most instances, these categories describe non-defining characteristics of people – which comes under guidelines against over-categorisation. How many people in Category:People with eating disorders are known for their eating disorders? How many people in Category:People with diabetes are "commonly and consistently defined" as diabetics in reliable sources? For how many people in Category:People with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder would it to be "appropriate to mention" their disorder "in the lead portion of the article"?

This is partially an issue of how they are being used. I just removed half of the prose from Paul Gascoigne, who is notable for his successful football career. It contained four sentences. The first two constituted a bare-bones introduction. The other two described his addiction to alcohol and his various mental problems. Because of the requirements that such claims be sourced and that categories have a minimum of three entries, users seem to add these bits with the primary purpose of creating the categories. No attention seems to be paid to balance, or to the quality of sources. Darrell Hammond and Whoopi Goldberg don't even have sources for their "problems".

Why, with such a small number of editors able to keep an eye on this sort of thing, are we continuing to categorise people this way? At some point, this comes under over-categorisation.

Why do we have Category:People with diabetes when the English Wikipedia, with its millions of editors, decided to delete that category? Same question for Category:People with dyslexia (deleted on enwiki), Category:People with depression (a ridiculous category, deleted on enwiki). Category:People with hepatitis never existed there. I'm not suggesting that we blindly follow their decisions with these. I'm suggesting that we go a step further and do what's best for maintaining this wiki, and delete all of them.

There are also these vaguely defined "container categories", like Category:People with anxiety disorders and Category:People with mood disorders, where articles are presumably being collected with the intention of eventually getting enough little stubs to create something like Category:People with obsessive–compulsive disorder for Emily Blunt and Category:People with post-traumatic stress disorder for Chris Brown (entertainer)—both absurd categories, especially the latter. This is a terrible system. Can we please fix it? Osiris (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this does seem to be an issue. My main question would be, how do we identify which categories are too specific/not suitable? Is it down to number of pages in the category? Potential for expansion? Or, probably more likely, common sense? You talk about mental disorders, but are there other unrelated categories which have become too specific/contentious on this wiki? In any case, it is a problem that we should be looking at. --Yottie =talk= 11:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we can go through the list of categories and ask the simple questions given at Wikipedia:Defining, then we should be able to come up with what's really needed and what is over-doing it. There is also this guideline, this guidelines and this how-to page for reference. Using common sense to apply that "defining" requirement is probably the best method. For example, reliable sources probably consistently define H. G. Wells as an English novelist, but not as an English novelist with diabetes (or an English diabetic or a diabetic novelist). But they might consistently define Peter Dinklage as an actor with dwarfism. There may be other categories that need looking at. I did start out complaining about the mental disorders, but hepatitis and diabetes don't fit into that category so I guess I'm actually complaining about any health issue. The parent category is Category:People by medical or psychological condition. Some of them look reasonable to me. But probably most, I think, should be deleted. Osiris (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think we have a more general problem of over-categorisation in biographies. Most editors agree we should not move in the direction of English wiki, where some biographies have over 200 categories. Yet, a few editors do put up new categories the moment there are three examples (and so the category cannot be cut without a lengthy discussion). My favourite is "People who died of natural causes". Can anything be more silly?
I can say with confidence that all stated causes of death pre-1930 are open to doubt. There was often no pathology done, and the causes were notional, and sometimes not even scientific. Not to mention, even, that genuine pathology has changed the basis of many categories since the 19th C. Therefore the evidential basis for classification is unsafe and not a good basis for encyclopedic statement. In most cases the cause of death is not in any way notable. Sometimes it is, and in those cases there should be an account plus evidence on the page. I think we should only categorise disease and/or cause of death on those pages.
With living people we have the further concern: a duty to avoid damaging their reputation by labelling them as (whatever) when that is not securely sourced as a significant part of their notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources, where given, are typically news articles, which is pretty poor. And yes, I think we are the only version of Wikipedia to categorise deaths by "natural causes". As if that's something interesting. Osiris (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support eliminating many of these. (Osiris, we've missed your guidance on this kind of issue!) There are definitely areas where we over-categorize. Besides medical conditions and cause of death, another is religion. It often seems that articles are put into these categories just for the sake of including every biography in the various areas, whether or not it's really important. And we must have references for this kind of thing when included in BLPs.
We could say that the condition has to be notable at the individual level for the category to be included. (For example, diabetes would be notable in the case of Mary Tyler Moore, not because she has it, but because she became an advocate for diabetes research.) However, even if we pare down a category to only those cases where it's notable, future editors will come along and add to it, so it might be best to just eliminate them. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. That would be a legitimate use of the category, in my view. Articles like Temple Grandin, as well – there does seem to be the occasional item that is closely associated with the disease. If they are very closely associated to the subject, would it be feasible to put those kind of articles in Category:Diabetes mellitus or Category:Autism or whatever? Because, as you point out, future editors will not stick to whatever we decide, and it becomes an issue that we don't have manpower to constantly deal with. Osiris (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting them directly in the higher-level category might be good, but eventually someone will see that there are three names there and make a category. Perhaps we even salt the categories so that it has to be discussed (or at least involve an admin to get them created), although I suspect that a determined editor would just create the category with a different name. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They can just be QD'd under G4. I'm not worried about that at the moment as it's not likely to be nearly as taxing as keeping up with the sourcing and content concerns. I will wait and see what other editors think, as I am expecting an objection to this. But the other question is how to proceed beyond that. It's clear to me that some of these need deleting. I would personally prefer to delete them all, but others might find some of them useful – and even I can see usefulness in some instances. So should I send them off to be assessed one-by-one? Osiris (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt Gödel (a very influential 20th century mathematician) starved to death, because he believed "they" wanted to poison him; he only accepted the food his wife prepared for him. When his wife was ill, and needed to go to hospital, he basically stopped eating (At the time of his death, he had a weight slightly above 30 kg). Now, do we define Gödel over this little anectote ("people who died from paranoia"), or do we look at what he actually did the rest of his life? -This is one side, the other is: Some people suffering from these conditions need figures to identify with? - Personally, I would be in favor to trim/generalize the categories, and then only have few entres. --Eptalon (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I come at it from the perspective that all of these categories should be removed and salted. If a mental disorder is a defining part of a person's life, there's no reason that they can't be categorized under a category like Category:Autism. "People with X" categories put too much emphasis on something that may just be a footnote in that person's life, and does the articles no good. --Lithorien TalkChanges 21:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note about this for Jim Michael, since he is the creator of most of these categories. Osiris (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people are notable for health conditions, but in many cases they have a major effect on their lives. Paul Gascoigne was mentioned. Most of the media coverage he's received in recent years is about his mental disorders and how they negatively impact on his life through maladaptive behaviour - not his former career as a footballer. If you started a conversation about Gascoigne with anyone other than a die-hard fan of his, it would be seconds before his mental health problems were mentioned.
We routinely include info about notable people's personal lives. I believe mental and physical disorders should be mentioned, if reliably sourced.
In the case of people notable for their crimes - most of them wouldn't have committed those crimes - and hence wouldn't be notable - if not for their mental disorders. Imagine how absurd it would be if all mention of mental disorders were removed from Jeffrey Dahmer.
Jim Michael (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what about our editing policies regarding balance? As I said, the article had four sentences of prose, and two of them were about his mental health.
If there is a connection between the crime and the person's mental health that is commonly drawn by reliable sources, then that isn't part of what I'm referring to. Osiris (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, this discussion isn't about mentioning the info in articles. It's about having categories for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info in the body of the articles has been mentioned in this discussion, which is why I've addressed that in my comments. I believe that both the info and cats should be in the articles.
Regarding balance, the problem is typically that there is too little info about the subject's career. We have many articles on sportspeople that are years out of date.
Jim Michael (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the policy states that we don't add that kind of information if it drastically affects the balance of a BLP... Do you think that we should have categories for all diseases? If so, why should we have categories that even the English Wikipedia does not maintain? What makes Simple English Wikipedia different in that respect? What's your rationale for adding articles to these categories? You state that these conditions may "have a major effect on their lives", but that is not the guideline for categorising people; our guideline is whether the person is "commonly and consistently defined" by that attribute in reliable sources. You've added Chris Brown (entertainer) to Category:People with anxiety disorders, based on the fact that TIME magazine says that at some point in the past he was diagnosed with PTSD. It might have made a had an effect on his life, but are reliable sources really defining him as a singer with PTSD? I'm sorry for all the questions, but I really would like to understand this system we have going. Osiris (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: I am going to send at least some of these to RFD, so before I do, are there any that you especially think shouldn't be deleted? Dwarfism could be seen as pretty defining, for example. Osiris (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest using lists for these instead of categories, but I see that enwiki deleted their lists of people with autism spectrum disorders. (They're discussing deleting the categories as well.) Of course, we don't necessarily have to follow what they do, but in this case I think their reasoning applies here. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of what led to me posting this, because I noticed that when patrolling the newly created List of people on the autistic spectrum. It's something that looks quite open to abuse. Osiris (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If by abuse, you mean vandalism, that can be dealt with in the same way as other vandalism. We have articles on high-profile, controversial public figures that are frequently vandalised, but we don't consider deleting them.
Some mental disorders are defining. A good example is schizophrenia, which has a devastating effect on its sufferers. Another is personality disorders, which dominate the lives of their sufferers. For example, ASPD is central to most serial killers.
Perhaps it would be better to wait until en's debate regarding autism cats is concluded, so we can see what arguments were used there before we debate ours here. Jim Michael (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can see enough of enwiki's discussion already, in the discussion about the categories and the discussion about the lists that were already deleted. Besides that, we're perfectly capable of having our own discussion without referring to enwiki's. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some people in this discussion, and in other discussions on simple, talk about what is done on en. Some people say that we should do things the same way they do; others say that we're a separate project and what they do is nothing to do with what we do. Jim Michael (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: "If by abuse, you mean vandalism" —No, I don't mean vandalism.
Alright. I have made a start with the ones you have not mentioned and that are likely not defining. Osiris (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term abuse

I had created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, but it was deleted by Auntof6 because there wasn't consensus first. So, I am asking for consensus. (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this here. We probably have little need for it. I think it can be handled at either WP:AN or WP:VIP. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Yeah, but we don't even have sockpuppet investigations, and we don't have a lot of the project-related templates that En-wiki has. I'm trying to help by expanding the wiki. (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be helpful, but we'll see what others say. There are things besides the language that we keep simple here, such as administrative procedures. We don't need or want as many procedures (and associated templates) as enwiki has. And we do have sockpuppet investigations, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that WP:AN is sufficient on this wiki for handling any long-term abuse cases. Also keep in mind that a number of our admins and 'crats are active on other wikis or IRC, and are able to keep an eye out for LTA cases that originate elsewhere. While it's true that this project is in English, we are much smaller than English Wikipedia, and don't need the administrative overhead that comes with all of EnWiki's ways of doing things. (It's similar to the differences between a large metropolitan city and a small town where everybody knows everybody!) When issues pop up that we don't account for in our policies or guidelines, we often take guidance from the policies on EnWiki but we don't always follow their ways. Likewise, we have WP:ONESTRIKE for those times when abusive editors find this wiki and attempt to continue the abuse. Etamni | ✉   03:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

Rather than allow the notice to languish unnoticed, I am posting this here. I have proposed splitting List of countries by area into several lists. This is because the list as it exists now includes three lists, each of which should be separate. I'm also considering the very tedious task of verifying the entire list, so if anybody wants to comment on that, now would be the time. I've started a discussion for this at Talk:List of countries by area. Etamni | ✉   10:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third lists (out of three total, for those who haven't looked at it yet) should at least be removed from this page, because they aren't lists of countries. That wouldn't even require discussion. Contrary to what the split-apart notice says, there should be no dab page because these lists are not equivalent. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially about the dab page. (It's just part of the template for the split; I'm not aware of a version that doesn't use that language.) Etamni | ✉  
Yeah, this isn't the kind of thing that template is meant for. It's meant more for articles that try to be about more than one meaning or use of a word. For example, if you had an article that was about both a book and a movie that was based on the book. (It's OK to mention the other thing, but detail belongs in a separate article.) --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to wiki search auto completion are arriving 10 March

- User:CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2016)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for access to research materials from:

  • Cambridge University Press - a major publisher of academic journals and e-books in a variety of subject areas. Access includes both Cambridge Journals Online and Cambridge Books. 25 accounts.
  • Alexander Street Academic Video Online - a large academic video collection good for a wide range of subjects, including news programs (such as PBS and BBC), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. 25 accounts.
  • Baylor University Press - a publisher of academic e-books primarily in religious studies and the humanities. 50 accounts.
  • Future Science Group - a publisher of medical, biotechnological and scientific research. 30 accounts.
  • Annual Reviews - a publisher of review articles in the biomedical sciences. 100 accounts.
  • Miramar Ship Index - an index to ships and their histories since the early 19th century. 30 accounts.


  • Noormags - Farsi-language aggregator of academic and professional journals and magazines. 30 accounts.
  • Kotobna - Arabic-language ebook publishing platform. 20 accounts.


  • Gale - aggregator of newspapers, magazines and journals. 50 accounts.
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect - an academic publishing company that publishes medical and scientific literature. 100 accounts.

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, De Gruyter, EBSCO, and British Newspaper Archive. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Anonymous page creation

Would it be possible to ban unregistered users from making new pages on the Simple English Wikipedia like the regular English Wikipedia already is? << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it is possible, but is it desirable?--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it can be done in a couple of different ways. But I do not believe we have enough issues here to warrant that drastic of a measure to lock unregistered users from creating pages. And I for one think this goes against the whole ideology that a wiki and especially Wikipedia is editable (and it implies able to create information ie pages) by everyone. We need article creation here on this wiki, even bad articles can be improved, and have become good articles, sometimes it just takes that spark from the bad article. -- Enfcer (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is to have IP users use Draft space to create articles, and then have them go through a process similar to RfC on EnWiki. While such a process would still allow "anyone" to edit or create pages, I think that it may add too much administrative overhead for a smaller project such as this one. Etamni | ✉   22:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we're better off as we are now allowing unregistered users to create articles.  Hazard SJ  22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC type deal would be hard to manage, and wouldn't really work in the end. I see it as fine the way it is. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 09:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should let them create. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library

Some time ago, I started a Wikipedia Library page for Wik/se ( ( ). Unfortunately, I have been remiss in developing it. I had thought to have it in decent shape before advertising it, but since I have let it slide, I am asking for help on work on it. (To find out what the idea behind it is, go to the link and then link to the general Wik information about WikLibs. Kdammers (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New button for Simple talk header

A couple months ago, I proposed adding a button to the top of this page that would basically instruct users to "Click here to start a new topic" -- that conversation took place at this page's talk page. A few minutes ago, the situation came up again when an IP editor added a comment in an inappropriate location on the page. So I'm going to ask again if anybody objects to adding the button. If nobody objects, I'm going to ask that one of our administrators go ahead and add it, since it is a protected page. (I do realize that having the button won't completely stop people from adding content to this page in the wrong place, but it will make it easier for well-intentioned new editors to figure out the right way to do so.) Etamni | ✉   09:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing from my mobile device, I see that it is extremely difficult to figure out how to correctly add a new topic. Chrome browser on older Android tablet, and there is no option that I recognize as a way to add a new section. I will have to go to the last section and add new section headers, but this is clearly something a newbie wouldn't know to do. A button is even more important than previously realized. Etamni-m (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested deletion of a column from the list. In order to ensure a thorough discussion, that request is being mentioned here. The discussion is at talk:List of U.S. states by population. Thank you. Etamni-m (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I have no major time to dedicate to Wikipedia lately because of "real life" obligations; if anyone wants to work on my draft of the William Shakespeare article at User:Only/William Shakespeare, please feel free to. I'm hoping to have time again in a couple of months. Only (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Call for Individual Engagement Grants

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a random reminder to the regulars, especially those watching for vandalism, to be extra watchful for edits made in jest today (April first). Some will be obvious, but it is important that we scrutinize even legitimate-looking edits, especially those from editors with no history here. I am not saying to suspend the requirement that we assume good faith, but this might be the day to add but verify to those words! Etamni | ✉   14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point, thanks. User:Rus793 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages and ambiguous terms

The names of some disambiguation pages (also called "dab pages") are qualified with "(disambiguation)", and some are not. When they are qualified, there is sometimes a page for a primary meaning of the term where that page name is the same as the dab page name but without the qualifier. Normally, we don't have to use the same page names as enwiki, but I'd like to make a case for using matching page names where disambiguation could be an issue. This would apply to the dab pages themselves and to the pages for the primary meaning of disambiguated terms.

The reason is that many articles here start as copies from enwiki. If our names for dab pages and the pages for the primary meanings don't match, we get incorrect links here. I don't think we'll ever get to the point where every page creator checks all links in a copied page every time, so a good way to help prevent this problem in many cases is to have our links for match enwiki's for dab pages and the related primary, unqualified page names.

Further complicating this is that there are cases where the page at the unqualified name is neither a dab page nor an article, but a redirect. In some cases it redirects to the dab page (which is backward and should be fixed), and in some cases it redirects to an article.

I tried to find some good examples, but it's hard to find them when you go looking. Here are a few.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm in favour of using the format "word (disambiguation)" for all dab pages. The benefit of this is:
1. When typing into the search box you see immediately where the dab page is.
2. The format would never need changing for any reason. It is clear, and would not need judgements. It could be listed in our style guide. There are many things which En wiki never thought out properly, and this is one of them. We should not copy their mistakes.
3. There is often an overwhelming use of one term, and it is natural to use that for the simple term. If we take as an example astronomical unit, which is on dozens of pages as AU. If AU is a dab page instead of a redirect that just makes work for editors writing new pages on astronomy. Instead, AU (disambiguation) is a term which need never be changed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could accomplish the first two by doing something that enwiki does: for every ambiguous term where the dab page name is unqualified (that is, where there is no primary meaning), have a redirect to it with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. That has the added advantage of allowing deliberate links to the dab page via the redirect with no confusion about whether that was intended.
As for the third item, I personally would be in favor of using "(disambiguation)" on no dab pages (except the redirects I just described). That way, you would always have to be specific about which meaning you intend, and readers would never end up at the wrong page. However, Wikipedia has the "principle of least surprise" thing that means we get unqualified titles for pages about the primary meanings of ambiguous terms. Because of that, and because it wouldn't fix the problem I'm trying to address, I am not proposing that. Your item #3 wouldn't address the problem, either, and could even make it worse. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A user's sandbox predicting contestants

I looked at this and was wondering if it was real. The current series is still in 2016. Please see NBL 2016 on English Wikipedia. Thank you. //nepaxt 03:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is becoming clear that this user is creating a world rather than building an encyclopedia. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion. //nepaxt 21:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]