Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 123

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Wilfred Campbell Poetry Festival

William Wilfred Campbell Poetry Festival, seems like a local festival which is organized yearly. The festival is organized in the name of William Wilfred Campbell a Canadian poet. The festival might not be notable on it's own. So I am asking community, what they think will be the best action? Delete it, keep it as it is or put a small section in the poets page about this festival and redirect it there. Thanks-BRP ever 08:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the poet is notable, but that is not inherited by the festival, which has no independent source for its own notability. Cut out all the guff, and have a para on the festival in as a sub-head under the poet's page, that seems good. But basically, notability is not inherited! English WP has the poet, and not the Festival. Because readers will find the poet's page, the festival doesn't really need a redirect, but it does little harm. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The country is apparently in the process of renaming itself. Our article was renamed, but I have renamed it back for now, because the rename is apparently not complete yet and because enwiki is holding off. See en:Talk:Swaziland#Is new name oficially confirmed? for more info. If/when we do rename, all related articles and categories should be renamed at the same time, and any templates that link to such articles should be updated. I recommend that we have a consensus before doing any of these changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no further process for the country to rename itself from what I understand. There is no approval required from any higher authority than the king, so 'further process' will not be forthcoming. It's a done deal. We should keep the international names of countries up to date and the main resistance to doing so seems like trying to spite the king's wishes, which is an emotional reward (spite), not a logical one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your mention of the "international names of countries" is exactly the point. Wikipedia articles use the words by which a subject is commonly known in each language. Currently, in English that is still Swaziland. Most Wikimedia projects still use that name, and we should do the same for now. I will copy this conversation to Talk:Swaziland. Let's have any further discussion there. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

I really didn't expect to be back here so soon, though on an entirely different topic. A new page arrived en bloc in one edit. It is Guantanamo bay detention camp. Looking through it I had some concerns as to its relationship to the En wiki version. You can read my concerns on the article's talk page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no user:Yorkienbie on En wiki, and most of the references direct out of the wiki, and do not actually work: they do not deliver support for the text. And so I do not believe this is genuinely a version of the En wiki page. The subject-matter is extremely controversial, and I sense this may be a propaganda plant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out on the talk page, I have copied over the EnWP version, and started to simplify it. I also said there that there is a difference of about 200k that the version we have is smaller than the EnWP one. Simplifying the text will take a considerable amount of time, and I think the original author should be included. --Eptalon (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for creating a new series warning templates for sending bad emails

Hi! I thinked one day on a new series user warning templates, for sending bad e-mails, and those template names could be: {{Uw-email1}}, {{Uw-email2}}, {{Uw-email3}} and {{Uw-email4}}. Those templates could be used to warn users for sending bad emails to other users. When an user sends a bad email to other user, the template (s) can be used. The templates can be used when a user send email that could be known as a "personal attack", "vandalism-email", "spam" (many emails at a time) and "adversting-email".-- Psl631 talk contributions 13:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this idea is that emails are private communication, and in cases of bad emails being sent, it should either be reported to administrators or discussed over email/on a talk page. Pre-made warning templates simply aren't feasible for this situation, if it were to happen. Vermont (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if someone is misusing the email facility with a personal attack, this could be handled differently. For instance, a complaint could be made to an oversighter by email, attaching a copy of the offending item. It's quite rare for such attacks to happen, actually. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time to bring embedded maps (‘mapframe’) to most Wikipedias

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed status

I am confused as to why my account doesn't seem to have the autoconfirmed status, although I have made more than 10 entries & the account is years old. I don't see a move tab on an article that I want to move, and on a semi-protected page I see the warning that I can't edit it. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odd; you have more than 10 edits and more than 4 days on wiki. I checked the abuse filter log and didn't see anything in your name, so it doesn't look like it was removed from you by the abuse filter. I'll ask around. Vermont (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph: Found the issue! You need one more edit. Vermont (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont Why one more? I count 13 previous ones, so this will be the 14th. Is 13 not "at least 10"? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why one more, it only recognized 9 of them when I checked your edit count with xtools. Either way, it worked and you're now autoconfirmed! Vermont (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  The system recognizes you have just 11 edits now, of which one is deleted. Maybe it just counts visible edits. I don't know, and the deleted edit is old. Anyway, you have autoconfirmed status now. Regards, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. If the criterion is not as stated at WP:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users, then the latter presumably needs to be corrected? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is because a number of your edits are imported edits from en.wiki. You didn't actually make them here, you made them on en.wiki where they would have been counted against en.wiki as opposed to simple.wiki, just counting edits on history isn't quite accurate because we do a lot of importing here. The 10 edits need to be edits made on this wiki. The system won't count imported edits. The wording there is correct, technically its your counting of edits that is incorrect. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add template (s) for adminrights granted and adminrights removed

Hi, I asking for new templates for when a user gains privileges, example:Rollback and templates for when rights are removed, example:Admin, but when I tried to create a template, Template:Adminrights removed (and doc page) both pages was deleted due to nondiscussed templates. I start discuss now with templates for userrights granted or revoked. The template, can contain a "user", "1" (unnamed parameter), "blocked" and "time" (only for the revoked rights template) parameter. I can also add link to how the right is used. Any questions ask in "Comments" section :). Thanks! -- Psl631 Leave me a message! my changes email me 12:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Ask comments here.

  • I don't mean to be harsh, but dude. People have told you already a few times, we don't need templates for everything. Especially for these type of things. We would write a personal message for this as a template message is impersonal. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Djsasso Ok. I forgot to discuss before creating the template or the page will be deleted, the page was deleted :(. REMEMBER TO DISCUSS BEFORE CREATING! -- Psl631 Leave me a message! my changes email me 12:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, it is very unlikely you will find a template of this nature or really most of the ones I have seen you suggest around the wiki that will be needed. We are a small wiki and those kinds of templates just plain are not needed here. What I am really saying is probably forget about trying to find templates like this to create rather than trying to get you to discuss. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this shouldn't even be a general discussion. It should be a question to the people who would be granting and removing rights, asking if they want such templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. We do have a guideline, called Criteria for Adminship. We are a small Wiki, with, I'd guess, between 20 and 30 regular named contributors. Many of the trustworthy editors have been awarded adminship privileges. As it says in the guideline: "Adminship is about trust". It is not comparable to a request for deletion, or a quick-deletion request. In that context, using templates might be nice, but it's ont something that we pressingly need. If you trust someone you take the extra time to actually type, rather than usining a template. Also note: I don't think we get more than 2-3 serious requests for adminship/bureaucrat per year (the cases worth considering, not the clear-cut ones). --Eptalon (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, is there a way to avoid adding automatically the pages that I edit with Twinkle to my watchlist? Esteban16 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be at Special:MyPage/twinkleoptions.js. Tell me if that works. If it doesn't, go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Vermont (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It worked, although I used the Twinkle panel preferences instead. Thank you, Esteban16 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, could you move the name of the article Fatemeh Parisa Movaghar to DJ Mixify please ? Thanks ! FPMovaghar (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently listed for deletion, there's a discussion about deleting it. Before the discussion is finished, the article cannot be moved. --Eptalon (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: - You should also be aware that DJ Mixify has been repeatedly created and deleted six times in the past as non notable (last time December 2017) and I believe it was previously salted for a period of time. DaneGeld (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon: The discussion may be unnecessary, and Fatemeh Parisa Movaghar may be able to be QD'd per G4. See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Parisa Mixify, who I'm 90% sure is the same person. In December of last year, a user moved DJ Mixify to Fatemeh Parisa, and two days later moved that page to Parisa Mixify, which was deleted by the aforementioned RfD in February. Vermont (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be G4'd as the content of the deleted version and this version are significantly different. G4 is only allowed if its the same content not just the same subject. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. As I have no ability to see the deleted version, I didn't know (that's why I said "may be able to be QD'd per G4). Vermont (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, was just explaining why I said it couldn't for others benefit. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before: As long as the RfD is running, moving is not an option (as it likely breaks the templates). After the RfD ends, we can look at moving, if the article is kept. --Eptalon (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Tab

Please add move tab to change the title of pages AJP426 (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a move tab, but you need to be Autoconfirmed user to move a page. Thanks-BRP ever 10:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


my account is automatic logged out can you fix it? AJP426 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened to my account also, try to tick the "Keep me logged in" tickbox when logging in next time or log out and back in again. -- Psl631 10:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

School projects and how to interact

Hi. This is the first time I have been aware of a school project being undertaken on this Wikipedia and I would like to ask for any advice from other editors who may have been involved before, with regard to how to interact with the projects, what to do and what not to do, etc. For example, I just noticed the creation of the article on Loretta Sanchez which appears to be a BLP. It's a stub, but isn't marked as such and has no references. What would you do with this? Do you leave it for the students to work on, or is it acceptable to tag? I would really like to make sure I don't screw this up, because it's really good to see Wikipedia being used as a training ground for students who may become valuable editors to us in the future. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I was a campus ambassador for a project in... 2012? 2011? on simple.wp and it was mostly a failure as the students put off their work until the last minute or never did it at all. As for best practices, the nice thing is that you will probably be interacting with adults who have 1.) a vested interest in doing well and 2.) high English proficiency compared to our intended readership, so you can point them to policy pages without fear that they are too complex for the reader to really understand. —Justin (koavf)TCM22:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DaneGeld: I would say to ask the project leader. They would be able to say whether they want the articles left alone until the students have gotten to a certain point, or if certain kinds of edits would be welcome. In some cases, the leaders have wanted changes mentioned on article talk pages instead of being made directly. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I usually leave it until the project time is over, I believe the length of the project is usually listed on the main project page, at which point once that is up I make the changes I think need made. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I recall us some time ago having a discussion about the use of the name Chattogram over Chittagong, as a user on here had moved the article citing the fact that the city had been renamed. I also recall there being some comment about the fact that the English Wikipedia still had it called Chittagong, and that we'd follow their convention or something similar. This is all very vague and I cannot remember where we had the conversation. I have just checked Wikidata (here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q376749) and every single Wikipedia (barring Polish) still has Chittagong as the official title, thus I've reverted ours back too. I am at a loss as to where we discussed this, so any help figuring this out would be welcomed. Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are Simple English Wikipedia; the idea is to use the most common name. I know we also had a similar discussion about eSwatini/Swaziland. Just because the name is now different doesn't mean people will use the new name. --Eptalon (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can the vector skin be customized?

Hi! I ask how the skin I using be customized, using the Special:Mypage/vector.css or Special:Mypage/vector.js pages, I asking where I can change the "font" of the Wikipedia pages using those pages? -- Psl631 talk 12:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to understand how to code css. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Please give me simple step-to-step instructions so I can customize my own skin, or a link to the instruction page. -- Psl631 talk 15:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a social network or your personal homepage. I don't think it is in line with project interests to teach you how to customise the MediaWiki interface from scratch. You will probably have more luck checking the MediaWiki documentation itself. Chenzw  Talk  16:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw: I would only add a "font" tag so I would have a custom font instead on the default font on all pages. (Please add link to MediaWiki documentation if possible) -- Psl631 talk 16:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no simple step by step guide. Doing these sorts of things is outside the scope of this project, if you would like to do these things you will have to go learn about them out in the world. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I feel I should also ask you to read WP:CIR as you are treading very closely on me thinking about a WP:ONESTRIKE situation due to your block on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: I want to customize my own .css and.js skin pages, and I do not know the HTML markup, how do I? Where is the HTML help page? and I DO NOT violate WP:ONESTRIKE here, I make good anti-vandal work here. -- Psl631 talk 16:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have help pages for those things here, those are things you have to learn from other pages on the internet or through books or classes. One of the many issues you had on en.wiki is that of incompetence, you have been displaying the same sort of issues over here as well. I am just doing a courtesy of letting you know you are pretty darn close to being blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please, can we stop making this discussion, I would not talk to much.-- Psl631 talk 17:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Filter Manager Proposal

Some time ago, we had a discussion to create the user group of Edit Filter Manager. It would add the following rights: (Same as En.Wiki)

  • Add and remove arbitrary tags on individual revisions and log entries (changetags)
  • Create and (de)activate tags (managechangetags)
  • Enable two-factor authentication (oathauth-enable)
  • Manage edit filters (abusefilter-modify)

With the increase in specific vandalism and the IP hopping, and Socking that is going on, I think we should consider this again. We had at that time a consensus to create the user group but what failed the nomination, is that we had no consensus on the following which we must have to enable the right:

  1. Who will be able to grant the right Admin / Crat?
  2. Will it be left for the Admin / Crat to determine or will it be a community vote?
    1. If its a vote how long will it run?
      1. How is Approval determined, a simple majority, or another consensus level?
  3. Will the right be permanent or subject to limitations?
    1. If there are limitations will it be subject to inactivity like the Admins such as 100 edits in a 12 month period, etc?
    2. Will it be temporary with a Maximum time, subject to renewal?
      1. If this option is picked is renewal a new vote in case of community consensus to grant, or is it left to Admin / Crat if they already had the right?
  4. Are there going to be minimum requirements to apply for this right?

I feel that we would benefit from active editors who have a good knowledge of the Edit Filters, but we need to have a complete consensus on all points to add the group right. I think I have covered all the main topics required on this discussion topic. If I left something out please feel free to add to the list. -- Enfcer (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_119#Proposal:_Abuse/Edit_filter_managers. --Chenzw  Talk  03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as for my thoughts about this, I concur that this right should be granted upon community approval, with a bureaucrat closing any such RfP and granting the right itself. The issue of how long the right should stay, however, I believe will be a bit more tricky - as I highlighted in the previous discussion, effective edit filters tend to be changed less often (or perhaps the target vandal is less flexible in their tactics, or both). In fact, from Special:Log/abusefilter we see that 2017 was the most quiet year ever for this wiki in terms of edit filter management - only 7 recorded log actions, and all in the later half of the year. For this reason I think a mandatory yearly review would not be effective, and suggest that we stick to an activity requirement similar to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Of course, a motion to revoke the right can always be tabled by any active member of the community, just like how deRfAs are done. Chenzw  Talk  03:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the edit filters we have now, I see that about a third of them have a thousand hits or more; Most of these have not been touched in quite some time. Writing/debbugging edit filters needs some scripting skills. In that context, having a process that would allow to grant such rights would probably be good. If at all I only see someone from another project helping temporarily; I don't see long community discussions about who should be granted the right. So: granting by Crat, auto expiry after 6-12 months. The big question though in the first place: How pressing is the need to get external help with filters? - Our current admin crew manages quite nicely. --Eptalon (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not sure we need this right. It is pretty simple to have an admin take care of it for you if there is something you need or to actually become one yourself. We already have a process for selecting admins and thus would have one less process to have to worry about on our small wiki. I note, that there really hasn't been an increase in vandalism. People keep saying that lately, but if anything I have seen a marked decrease in it compared to years past. I see no pressing need whatsoever with this. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand on this, what might be a better way of handling this (although Eptalon points out with his link to how often we need to edit them is pretty low) is to just create noticeboard for requests to admins for edit filters, but even that is probably going farther than we need when a simple post to the regular Admin noticeboard could take care of pretty much any needed edits if you didn't wish to become an admin yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Djsasso on this, although I think we should have policies in place (and the technical ability) to grant edit filter manager permissions, in the event it is needed in the future. Currently, I doubt the permission would be of much use, considering that the most active editors are mostly sysops and thus can already deal with edit filter issues. Vermont (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think vandalism levels are a matter of perception, I feel that I have reverted more vandalism, and seen more vandalism reverted then normal. As far as low edit count on the Abuse filters, being used to note low need, there is the other side of that coin. While we have some very technical minded Admins, others may not be. I have a basic understanding of the programming aspect of edit (abuse) filters, but it is not the most comfortable thing for to me do, so I am trying to learn more about them, and become more comfortable. I think low edits, just indicate, a low amount of Admins willing to edit them, to reduce the very specific vandalism we have seen lately. This right would grant us the ability to allow very technical editors the ability to help out more with vandalism by stopping it before it happens. So saying the Admins are capable of handling the issue, they are, but what is the technical ability of all of our admins, and their willingness to edit them? --Enfcer (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That misses the second part of my comment, those people could become admins. If they aren't trustworthy enough to be admins, they aren't trustworthy enough for this right either in my mind. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point, but there could be people who are trustworthy enough to be admins who don't want the responsibility of the admin job but who would be willing and able to help with the filters. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Auntof6 said. We have talented editors who may not want the full Admin tools and the extra responsibility that comes with those tools. This will allow the vandal fighters who have the technical knowledge to more then fight with Rollback, and help stop it before it happens. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no expectation of work for an admin, so you can be an admin and only use the tools for changing edit filters and not have any added responsibility. You are not required to do any of the other things admins can do. As volunteers admins are able to choose what tools they use and don't use. -DJSasso (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also note that this propagates the idea of hat collecting, we already see it with the patrolling right, when we created it, it was only intended to be used so that trusted editors edits wouldn't show as unpatrolled and slowly people started giving it out to anyone so that they could "patrol". This is will only add to the idea that Wikipedia is a vandal fighting game and soon everyone will want the power. You want to edit the filters then put the effort in to become an admin, this right is too powerful not to be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it looks like the consensus has changed to where we really do not have a need to consider the right. I still believe it is a right that we should have available for qualified editors, who do not want to be admins, or are admins or have the similar right on other projects that are trying to help out but are not interested in an adminship here. I am sure this is not the last time we will debate this issue, but I feel that the consensus has changed from 9 months ago when this was tried last. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the numbers: there have been about 10 changes to edit filters this year (2018). Some years back I believed that there would be collaboration between different project as to edit filters. It turns out that this collaboration is very limited. So, we are discussing introducing a flag for eleven edits in 120 days (or one edit roughly every two weeks). Two admins were responsible for these edits. We introduce a process, where people can nominate prospective filter managers. The candidate needs to fulfill certain criteria, for example a number of support votes. In my opinion, this is just overkill. EnWP is alot bigger, for them it may make sense to make a difference between filter manager and admin, for us it does not. It's not worth our time, for probably 30 to 40 edits per year.--Eptalon (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be honest with you, I really don't see there is a point in having a right here that will hardly get any use, when there are already people who can do the job that this right gives. Not of a practical use to this Wikipedia. DaneGeld (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add new rights and new protection levels

Hi! I thinked on adding new user rights to the Simple English wikipedia and some new protection levels:

User rights

  • Auto-rollbacker (automatically obtained if making 1000 changes and be here for two months).
  • Interface editor: to make so all users with this permission can change the MediaWiki pages without need of admin permission.
  • Template editor: Users with this permission can change pages with template protection and add and edit editnotices.
  • Page mover: this users can move pages without leaving redirect and move subpages with main page.

Protection levels

  • Template protection to use on highly-visible templates instead of full protection, and requires template editor permission to change

Please add questions or comments in "Comments" section. :) -- Psl631 talk 06:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't think these rights are needed, this is a small community. Rights such as rollback should not be awarded automatically. Not everyone editing here also does vandal fighting. This proposal adds complexity and gives few benefits. When protecting pages, the move right can be limited to auto-confirmed users, there is no need for a separate page mover right. Similar observations apply for the other rights mentioned. --Eptalon (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the size of the community, this is additional bureaucracy and simply promotes hat-collecting, what with all of these new user rights available for "collection". Our main goal here is to build an encyclopedia. Chenzw  Talk  07:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And rollback is not easy to handle. For a writer who only contributes in article it can be a burden since it just needs a click. We have twinkle with similar function if needed. Edit count is irrelevant, the kind of work they do matters. Rollbackers need to have good judgement over edits and should assume good faith. We don't need all those user groups. We are a small community, let's keep user rights simple too. Thanks:)-BRP ever 08:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is totally unnecessary here, and really yet another attempt by Psl631 to find a way to collect some hats which has being going on here for awhile now. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instituting an automatic addition of rollback is simply dangerous, and Psl631's request for this feature seems to me like an attempt to bypass WP:RfP. The other user rights proposed are not needed, as they would very rarely be used in a community of this size, and we really don't need template protection. IP's edit high visibility templates quite often, usually in good faith. Vermont (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no need for this level of rights being segmented out, for the community of our size. -- Enfcer (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No point to any of this, as noted above. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add WRT "template editor": the reason this right was created on enwiki was the combination of "many templates are high visibility templates that effectively need full protection [on enwiki]" and "many administrators do not have the technical understanding of template syntax required to handle those templates". Here at SE Wikipedia, there is no history suggesting the corresponding templates here require full protection at all—and there are plenty of people here (like me) who can edit such templates if they are semi-protected. Just no. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting notability in countries with less international news coverage

We have had quite a few QDs and RfDs for people from South Asia, especially Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan. User:MTKASH raises some good points in a comment on this discussion:

"I think this article is Notable cause bangladeshi peoples doesnt have acess to nytimes or international platforms. But he has good references in National TV and National newspapers whih shows the person is notable."

Separate from the merits of this RfD, we want to be more inclusive of subjects from the global south and from Outer Circle countries where English is commonly used. The issue then is trying to figure out which sources are good enough to support notability and which are just fan blogs, PR farms, and gossip sites (Update: Especially for entertainers / entertainment). I don't think we need a policy or list of approved sources, but I could use a better understanding of the media landscape in these countries. Towards that end, I translated a few articles from EnWP. I think these would make a good core of reputable sources for references for notability in Bangladesh.

These seem to be the primary news media in Bangladesh in English. Apologies if I have missed any. Now these should show up linked in references and I hope will make it quicker and fairer to judge these QDs and RfDs and keep content quality high on Simple. Any thoughts, suggestions, or concerns? If this is helpful, I can help do the same for Nepal and Pakistan. -- Gotanda (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotanda, do you think reliable sources in India (though there are many), is it possible to list out majors? There are many unreliable sources and I find them in many articles. If they could be listed they can be identified in article and considered good. There are many confusions regarding sources in India and if trusted sources can be separated it can make things easy. Both Hindi and english sources can work. If it is difficult it is not compulsory. Thanks-BRP ever 04:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BRPever, I think it would be an excellent idea to try to identify a set of really useful sources from India as well, but I am sure that is a bigger project! This looks like a good start though. You are correct that it can be challenging to tell which sources are really good and which are not. Two recent examples are TellyChakkar and NewsTechCafe. TellyChakkar seems like pretty much gossip and advertising/PR disguised as news. NewsTechCafe seems to be open to anyone to publish, so is probably not authoritative. But anyone can put up a good looking website these days so it is sometimes hard to tell.... -- Gotanda (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in enwiki similar to this. This list might be helpful. I also suggest we make a project page listing the reliable sources of South Asia and update that list. If it is not possible making a user-space listing those sources and updating there. These list can be a great help and keeping it listed like that can make things easier.-BRP ever 05:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking this might be a good subpage under notability. However, if enwiki already has this info, maybe we don't need to duplicate it, just link to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine, linking may work too since lists aren't all that difficult to read and they have divided those according to country which makes it more easier. But for some other countries like Nepal their list is incomplete and they are not updated. I see only few and they too are not very popular these days.-BRP ever 07:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are good reasons why New York Times, Washington Post, The Times, The Telegraph, Die Welt, Le Monde, Le Figaro, etc. have a reputation for reliability. It is mainly due to their history of being resistant to government and advertisers pressure. In some countries (majority, I think) simply cannot afford to publish anything really critical of their government, and are ultra-sensitive to the wishes of their advertisers. The above sources also employ professional reviewers of films, books, popular culture, etc. That is really satisfactory for our purposes, and something to look for when thinking about news sources in other cultures. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the point you are making mac. That problem is a common problem with news sources here. Still there is a problem when it comes to notability since one can't get enough sources from these country. So, I don't see any other option here. But still those which I've listed above are national newspapers which are stored in Tribhuvan university library, and are treated most trusted nationally. But still I won't deny the advertisement, nationalinfluence and side taking of News sources.-BRP ever 17:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for each country we will have to accept the best that is available as sources to support contributions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to gain access to accounts

If anybody gets any notifications of a failed attempt to access their account, it might interest you to hear that seems to have happened to a lot of people (myself included). Regards --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 20:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We received at least two dozen people at the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel today complaining about this issue, and many of the helpers had it as well. Vermont (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was notified, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this for the full scope of the issue. Vermont (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unfortunate reality in today's world; do ensure that you do not use the same passwords on other sites, and consider changing it to a stronger (and longer) one if necessary. Editors with advanced user rights (i.e. >=sysop) should also look into enabling Special:Two-factor authentication. Chenzw  Talk  02:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has happened to me too, someone tried about 9pm UTC last night (May 3rd) to get in via the main English Wikipedia. I have changed my password, but it's kinda freaky why people do this? What do they expect to gain on Wikipedia? Maybe hack an admin account?? DaneGeld (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was 14hrs ago or something. It was failed attempt so I didn't bother changing my PW. Was it a technical fault or something?-BRP ever 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah this happens every once in awhile here. Make sure you have separate passwords for each site you use. -DJSasso (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we create a template as a notice for copied from enwiki

Hi everyone! I thinked that create a template as notice if the page is copied and pasted from Enwiki. The template can include simplifying, and if the page is not simplified within a time, it can be deleted instead of QD it directly. The template can include notice "add {{simplifying}} when the page is getting simplified" when it getting changed to get simple. Please, if this page is getting created, please add it to twinkle please. -- Psl631 t a l k 09:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have such a template. We deleted it because it isn't really needed. Remember, we try to keep processes simple here, not just language in articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Which template? Please can you give link to the page, so I remember the template, and is it used by twinkle? -- Psl631 t a l k 09:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give you a link, because it was deleted and therefore doesn't exist any more. (That's what "we used to have" means.) Since it doesn't exist any more, it obviously isn't used by Twinkle. Let me repeat what I said above: we try to keep processes simple here, not just language in articles. Processes that would in effect be a delayed quick deletion have been turned down in the past because they are more complex that the processes we have now. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to point out that copying from EnWp is not a bad thing; very often it is the first step. Either write from scratch, or copy from EnWP and simplify what you copied. --Eptalon (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, I would agree: I've copied from enwiki many times, but to me this discussion is about a possible template, not about the articles it might be used on. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is {{enwp based}} and possibly {{based on}}; those are for attribution, though. --Eptalon (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attrib template: this is what I use. It does everything. You substitute title and the number comes from "cite this page" on the En version. gives the specific version, not some vague hand-waving. It goes on the talk page of the new simple article. If editors worry about QD, then either: a) don't put it up until you have simplified it, or b) put up the inuse flag at the top (but don't leave it there overnight). Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{enwp based|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_skepticism&oldid=346768538}}

Something I would like to remind editors and admins alike on. Being identical to en.wiki is not a delete reason in and of itself. If an article is already simple, it can match up with en.wiki completely. The QD delete reason requires the article to be complex for it to be deleted. So I repeat, simply copying an en.wiki article over if it is simple is not a delete reason. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Just what we need. More stuff with advanced features to confuse our users! DaneGeld (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DaneGeld, this feature will be in beta and not automatically enabled for readers. Vermont (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, if it's not going to be switched on for everyone to use, that's fine. I am concerned though that on a Wiki where everything is simple and made that way deliberately, what kind of feedback are WMDE expecting? What is the point of making it available on a wiki like ours? DaneGeld (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, beta features usually find their way into the standard code. DaneGeld has a point, but on some level we have to keep the base software up to date or it won't be supported. If it becomes unsupportable, the entire Wikipedia could be eliminated, because we are part of a bigger whole that needs to be cohesive. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Naa, might be like improved search in wikidata or something. But I see the good old search pretty perfect so what could WMDE have thought in addition? Old libraries are more valueable but wikiprojects run on software so keeping it upto date is necessary. And it's just beta so we have an option here atleast for now:)-BRP ever 23:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should give it a try. While I do not recall having a problem with search on SE, I do know that the search on EN is uncomfortable. Having said that I think we should give it a try, I find myself at a loss finding out how to test it out! Kdammers (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its not an issue here because the interface can have its language switched, we don't simplify the software. Only the language and processes etc. Not being in the same place as other wikis would actually end up more complex because readers from other language wikis would not be able to bring their knowledge of how to use the wiki here and so would have to learn new ways of doing things. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

Hi, Could someone move Sia Furler to Sia (musician) as she's obviously never been known as the former name, The latter title already exists hence why I can't move myself, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Auntof6. –Davey2010Talk 02:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

requested enteries?

sew should have a page for this. -- (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:Requested pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links seem to be broken on simple Wikipedia

Help:Link mentions "Interwiki link" and as an example has Wikipedia:MediaWiki. That form of interwiki linking seems to be broken on this Wikipedia.

The Special:Interwiki table seems to be okay. See m:Interwiki map for viewing/updating the raw table. Marc Kupper (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links beginning with Wikipedia: will not work as expected because this is a Wikipedia project, and the Project namespace takes priority. I have changed this to a wiktionary link for clarity. Links to other language editions should also be prefixed with a colon, or the entire link will not show. Chenzw  Talk  08:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposal for Psl631

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am here today to propose a community ban for Psl631:

This proposed ban shall be independent of WP:ONESTRIKE. Over the last few months this wiki has seen multiple cases of disruption from this editor, tying up valuable editorial resources in the process:

Assuming bad faith
Maintenance tag-bombing
Severe communication issues
  • Cases of he being told not to do some action X -> "Ok, I will not do <some strange interpretation of X which may or may not be the original editor's intention> anymore"
    • Examples are everywhere on the editor's own talk page.
    • To give an analogy, it almost looks like I am interacting with a badly-programmed robot.

There's also this issue where the editor thinks that this is a social networking site, and has increasingly been using a variety of "sad face" emojis in edit summaries. This is reflective of a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the project, and, in conjunction with the above mentioned examples, makes me question their 1) command of the English language, and/or 2) logical reasoning abilities.

en:WP:NOTSOCIAL, with WP:DENY concerns

Before I get accused of assuming bad faith myself, I want to point out that:

  • The user's first edit on the English Wikipedia was in November 2017
  • The user has evaded their block on the English Wikipedia, with a variety of unblock requests that were found to be unconvincing
  • "Assume good faith" does not mean "give them unlimited chances"

I do not see any improvement in this situation without a highly-structured mentoring arrangement, and propose that such a ban be subject to later review no earlier than one year from the ban. Chenzw  Talk  05:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chenzw: No, no, no, please do not ban me from this wiki, i will use correct things and stop using emojis, I will continue revert vandalism here, and what happens if I gets a community ban? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 05:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A ban is similar to a block, except that the community (the other users) makes the decision instead of an admin. To end the ban, the community would have to agree to let you start editing again. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where, on which page need I to discuss the ban to get de-banned if I get banned? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 05:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the terms of the ban. We will tell you that if the ban happens. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop making bad changes, and I will still be here, I would rather have a block than a ban, and this block could be indefinite, until I have explained all thing in a discussion on my talk page. I requested quick deletion on User:Psl631/Scary because it is very scary page, and what happens if I get a ban? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 05:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I declined the QD on that "scary" page because it is referred to in this discussion. It is not actually scary: it just has a gif file whose movement could bother people. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What happens if I get banned and what happens if I get blocked? I do not want to get banned, rather a block for 3-6 months/infinite with talk page access to discuss the ban/the things. Ok? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a ban, not a block. If you get banned, you would not be allowed to edit here during the ban for the determined mimimum ban period -- not on your own pages or any other pages. There would be no discussion until the end of that period. The proposed minumum ban period is one year, not 3-6 months. At the end of the minimum ban period you would be able to ask to have a discussion about unbanning you. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will I be able to change at least one page or will I be unable to change all pages and see an error message while trying? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You would be forbidden to change any pages. If you have any more questions, please read the page on blocks and bans. Anything that isn't there would depend on the terms of the ban, and can be answered when the discussion is over. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6:Will I be able to change my own discussion page when I are banned from this Wikipedia? Can we use infinite block instead of ban? --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you everything I can before the discussion is over. I will not answer any more questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6:Can I still read the pages, but I cannot change the content under the ban?--Psl631 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read the pages you added in you userpage before, there is every thing. If you are not taking this seriously, you fail as a wikipedian or wikimedian because for me this might be the worse thing that could ever happen and might be same for any serious wikipedian. And Au6 said she won't answer any questions so it's not appropriate to ping her after that.-BRP ever 10:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Simple Wikipedia Points" uses I to make some points to interest me with, I will not continue make those things, bad Qds or bad rollbacks, use real warnings and rollback only vandalism using twinkle. NO more notice password, this is not video game, an encyclopedia. NO overtagging or congrating myself. Ok, NO more things there. --Psl631 (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support community ban. The editor does not have the maturity they need to edit Wikipedia, regardless of language or edition. Saying this as a regular of the English Wikipedia proper, I emphatically believe that Simple English Wikipedia is not supposed to be an outlet for editors blocked on the English Wikipedia to continue the same behaviors they were blocked for. The Simple English Wikipedia community should not spend their time "nursing" such editors.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I remember when I was scrolling through their user page, noticed their password, and hopped into the stewards IRC channel to report the compromised account. Even prior to that, there had been CIR issues, with his sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia and his 3 RfA's (1,2,3). These CIR issues are exemplified by Psl's lack of understanding of how blocks work on his en.wikipedia talk page. He also formulated something he calls "Simple Wikipedia Points". See User:Psl631#Simple Wikipedia Points, and scroll down a bit for large tables about it. Wikipedia isn't a video game. He also proposed new user rights, including automatic rollback, likely due to him being declined rollback on multiple occasions. He has attempted to make templates for "Need Images", which was ultimately deleted ([1]), templates for administrator rights given/removed which were deleted ([2]), and page protection templates which suffered the same fate. ([3]) He also routinely leaves messages for himself on his talk page, such as this where he congratulated himself on 500 edits and is, for some reason, under the impression that one can request adminship at 500 edits as though it depended on edit count. He has also used much of his editing for his user page and personal editing experience, rather than contributing to the encyclopedia. See these diffs/sections: [4][5][6][7]. Also, see his user page, where he actually gave himself a warning in a large red box about possibly being banned (a few minutes after this discussion was made), and just look at the rest of it. He has about 2,000 edits, 350 of which (20%) are in user space. He has about 370 edits in mainspace, and about 790 in user talk space. Overall, he is more of a liability than an asset to the project, and with his past actions in overtagging and misunderstanding comments from administrators, I support a community ban. Vermont (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support community ban. Psl631 has been disruptive in many ways, most of which are detailed above. I would like to add that he is even being disruptive in this ban proposal, asking questions after Auntof6 told him to stop. He has regularly received messages on his talk page telling him to stop doing things while he has been here. Unfortunately, the community's patience has run out now. J991 17:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Due to Psl631 continued bad edits, and making unnecessary changes to templates, and creating even more templates while this ban discussion is taking place, I have temporarily blocked that user from editing for a period of 1 week. I left that users talk page editable by that user, should they need to communicate with statements being made here, with a warning that they can not abuse that page in the process to continue project disruption. -- Enfcer (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The fact they published their PASSWORD on there USERPAGE is enough for me to support indeffing, We all get off to rocky starts on these projects but this goes above and beyond "rocky starts", The tag bombing and various issues above are also concerning,
I made plenty of mistakes when coming here and I still do but like everyone here you learn from your mistakes and learn from various people .... This editor seems to repeatedly be making mistakes and not learning at all,
In short this editor is more of a time sink and hinderance than of help and benefit to the project. –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if TPA and email revoking is part of the package but if not as per the discussion below I too obviously support that too, Not entirely sure if this comment is even needed but ah well. –Davey2010Talk 00:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • per everything above I support this proposal. I requested him many times not to do so myself, every response came as sorry, I will not do that from now on or similar but at last he didn't changed his actions. I mean one makes mistakes but one should correct it after all these chances. This kind of immaturity by a wiki editor and habit of taking Wikipedia this lightly is not acceptable. And also one could see this coming miles away, he was warned about this so many times. I am glad this proposal is independent of "ONESTRIKE" and a year or equivalent ban might be enough time to bring seriousness and maturity in this user as wiki editor. Thanks-BRP ever 13:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I agree with what everyone says above, including the fact that he gave himself warnings, even on the main/complex English Wikipedia ([8]). There are 15 messages he made on his talk page that starts with something like "Ok, I'll not do this" and "Ok, I'll agf. Ok!" as if there's a badly-programmed robot replying to the community's complaints. theinstantmatrix (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons given by others and more. Several times I tried to warn this user that his behavior was likely to be seen as disruptive and could lead to a ban, but the warnings seem to have done no good. Each time a disruptive behavior was pointed out, he agreed to discontinue it (sometimes only after arguing and being told that "But I want to!" is not a good reason), but he kept finding new disruptive behaviors. He seems to look at Wikipedia as a place to play: play can be OK if it leads to something constructive, but in this user's case it did not. Even if the user promised not to be disruptive, I wouldn't trust that he could judge what would be disruptive: hence my support of the ban proposal. If the ban is implemented, I would caution the user against inappropriate or excessive contact during the ban, perhaps specifying that the ban would be extended if those things happen. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auntof6 - Just a suggestion but wouldn't it be a good idea to revoke TPA whilst they're blocked ?, They have UTRS but I feel completely banning them would be better than just partially doing it, Ofcourse it's just a suggestion and no one has to revoke it but I just feel for the editor as well as for ourselves it would be a good idea atleast for now, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we can do that and even revoke their ability to use the email function, but that wouldn't prevent them from directly emailing our admin email or any users whose email they have. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It currently is blocked, but typically we wouldn't block it during a ban until they abused the access. Just because they do have the right to using the page for unblock requests. We don't use UTRS for anything here really. It is their talk page or directly emailing the admin list. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the discussion below, reviewing Ps1631's edits, and noting the comments of other editors, I have placed an indefinite block on this user, which could be reviewed in 12 months. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too advanced?

I'm new to simple english wikipedia, and I was using it for an algebra project. I think that the relation (mathematics) page was more advanced. At least, more advanced to the other math pages I visited. I don't know if it's supposed to be like that, or somebody made it too advanced. I'm pretty sure 14 lines of caption is too much for a simple english page. I didn't know what half the symbols mean. If an admin could look over this page, or add one of those "may not be easy to understand" templates. Thank You!

You are entirely right; the whole article is pretty much uselessly complex, using unexplained jargon to discuss arcane questions. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the last Simple English revision. I'd support reverting to it, then re-adding the categories that Auntof6 did and other constructive edits that took place after that revision. Vermont (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! This will help a lot with my project! except, I have no idea how to do that... 2601:5C8:8100:15C4:14C7:BD78:3CA5:8886 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (I'm the one who posted this, I forgot to put the '~'s.)[reply]
Would it be okay if I added a Template:Complex to this page? I think it would be a good idea so other users will know it's too complex, at least until another editor reverts it. If so, could you also tell me how to add one of those edit messages that shows what the editor did? Again, Thank you so much! 2601:5C8:8100:15C4:14C7:BD78:3CA5:8886 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu gods and Hinduism related pages

There are some pages related to Hinduism but there is a lot of debateable information like "In Hinduism, there is only one God, named Brahman, but Brahman is said to have taken on many different incarnations. Some of these are Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Shiva, Kali, Parvati, and Durga." By what I know Rama is the incarnation of Vishnu, and the concept of only one and superior god is always debateable since there are many sampradays in Hinduism. As a result I found tug of war going on in some pages. So asking suggestions from the community. I think it would be a good idea to avoid including supreme god while talking about Hindu gods as a whole and include those while talking about sampradays only. And instead talk about Trimurtis, Tridevis, other main gods and family and incarnations of those main gods. Thanks-BRP ever 09:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason of Simplicity: There are many gods in Hindusm. Note that in Christianity: The natute of God led to many splits: First the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (and a few others); the question of the Filioque (Eastern Orthodox, eg.); the Trinity (Chritadelphians, Christian Science, Mormons,...)- in short: The nature of god(s) is not something people easily agree on.--Eptalon (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I thought it would be best not to include supreme or main god while talking about all hindu gods because that would make things more complicated since every branch (sampraday) have different one. It would be best if we include those while talking about specific sampraday only.-BRP ever 10:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been changing Twinkle?

Recently when I use Twinkle to warn a user, the usual popup window appears, but all the text and graphics in it are pushed over to the right. There's just blank space in the left two fifths or so of the window. Is anyone else seeing this? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, when I am editing with mobile it often happens. What I do is, refresh the page, zoom out, make the page full size and press the QD again.(often when I mark pages for QD)-BRP ever 08:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually seeing it on my laptop and not on my tablet (I haven't tried on a smartphone). The next time I'm on the laptop, I'll try refreshing as you describe. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing that at all, so if it was happening someone fixed it. Or maybe we are using different skins so it isn't affecting me. As BP mentions refreshing would be a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Today it's not happening. Maybe whatever was causing it got resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New link in the sidebar

In Arabic wikipedia, we have a link in the sidebar just under "New changes", we call it:"أحدث التغييرات الأساسية", which means "New main changes" or "New important changes". The Idea is just to have a page containing all the important pages (such as RFAs, delete discussions, policy pages, important templates, help pages and simple talk (which we call "the field or arena")) and using this tool for the page, so that It's easier for the community to notice any new change in these pages. I think we should do that too if possible MohamedTalk 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are already linked at the top of Recent Changes. If you want to follow any of them just watchlist those pages. Having a link like that would be a nightmare of deciding what is important or not. Its better just to make that determination on your own and watchlist the necessary pages. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage Sites in China

I checked this page today, and found many red links. Perhaps some editors would enjoy a little project to add pages to this category? There are some pretty spectacular locations to go! No formal organisation, we've done it before and it seems to help having a small group work on different but related pages. We've done things like "Bridges" and "airports" on previous occasions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Requested pages but maybe we should have a weekly community drive on a topic to help out. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weekly might be too often for our small community, but I've been thinking about what might make a good topic for another of the "big weekends" we used to have (see Wikipedia:Big Weekend). This would certainly be a good one. If you decide you'd like to coordinate one (not that you have to use that framework), feel free to ask for guidance about what worked well when we did them before --Auntof6 (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If a few more editors indicate support, we could put it up on the Big Weekend page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (May 2018)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to research and tools as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

  • Rock's Backpages – Music articles and interviews from the 1950s onwards - 50 accounts
  • Invaluable – Database of more than 50 million auctions and over 500,000 artists - 15 accounts
  • Termsoup – Translation tool


Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Loeb Classical Library, Cairn, Gale and Bloomsbury.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:03, 30 May 2018 (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.

Translation effort: Pontiac's War

Hello all, I used the automatic translation tool to "translate" (and simplify) the article Pontiac's War. Pontiac's War was a Native American rebellion in the 1760s, in the area of the Great Lakes. While I tried to keep the language simple, I still put the complex tag on top. I think it would be good if other editors could help proofread/simplify this article. --Eptalon (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have come across some quite inappropriate redirects. Especially bad (and quite common) are redirects made to get rid of red links (and have no other discernible function) and redirects which are logically inappropriate (owing to user not properly understanding the subject-matter). Almost every case was the work of an IP. I'm thinking that we might consider limiting the power to redirect to registered users. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't discriminate against IPs for the same reason we allow page creation by them. We need all the help we can get, we have to take the bad sometimes to get the good. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have accidentally linked the new page Simon de Montfort to the En wiki page Simon de Montfort 5th earl of Leicester. Readers will get a surprise when they arrive, for #5 was quite a different person! The correct link should go to Simon de Montfort 6th earl of Leicester. Perhaps someone who understands this gadget better than I could make the change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, click on the "Wikidata item" link on the left and it goes straight there. It's pretty easy to pick up from there how to fix things. If you have issues, we all have logins at wikidata and can help there directly. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Very Good Article: Ronald Reagan

Hello all, I have just promoted Ronald Reagan to the status of Very Good Article. Thanks to everyone for helping, and especially to User:TDKR Chicago 101 for the great work he did in helping meet the criteria. --Eptalon (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linked years

Hi, Do years here need to be linked ?, I only ask because the DMY/MDY tool specifically removes the [[]] from years which obviously poses an issue, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we stopped linking years in articles, most of the time. --Eptalon (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We no longer link dates in general, except in certain kinds of articles, mostly articles that are some kind of chronology. Maybe we no longer need them there, either, but for now we still have them. I set up my AWB parameters to automatically unlink dates (both days and years) when processing. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okie dokie, At present I've cancelled edits where it's unlinked them as obviously I wasn't sure and would've hated to unlike to find out they were fine, Okie dokie I'll use on that articles, Many thanks Eptalon & Auntof6 –Davey2010Talk 21:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I've recently added mw.loader.load( "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zhaofeng_Li/Reflinks.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript" ); {en:WP:Refill) to my common.js however when I click on the refill button it loads the article but for EN - Is there way to change this so that when I click the word the default is Simple?,
At present when using this on articles I'm having to change "en" to "simple" in the URL,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you would have to rewrite it to work here, which may be possible, but not always. User created scripts are always hit and miss here because they may depend on pieces we don't have on this wiki. When I get a chance I can take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, I wasn't sure if there was a quick fix so thought I'd ask, Okie dokie no worries I mean I don't have a problem doing it that way but as I said just thought I'd ask, Many thanks as always :), –Davey2010Talk 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update on page issues on mobile web

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-encopypaste and QD option A3 (direct copying and pasting from another Wikipedia)

Since the content translation tool went online, we have had new articles created not only by directly copying from enwiki, but also by direct automated translation from other-language Wikipedias. Quick delete option A3 is for articles that have been "copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text" (italics mine). However, when we leave a message asking an editor not to do that, the canned text in Template:Uw-encopypaste specifies "directly copied and pasted from the main English Wikipedia".

Personally, I'd like to disable to content translator for use here, because it can't produce simple English. In any case, It would be nice to have a way to leave a message saying that direct translation from another language is not allowed. I'd like to see us do one of the following:

  • Change Template:Uw-encopypaste to include mention of direct translations from non-English language Wikipedias (even though the template has "en" right in its name).
  • Add an option to the single issue notices dropdown menu to use when there has been a translations from a non-English Wikipedia.

Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That QD is only meant to stop straight copying from en.wiki when the text is complex. Copying from en where the language is already simple (as long as attributed) is perfectly acceptable, and translating from another language because it isn't the identical text (even if not simple) is also perfectly acceptable for the same reason that people writing articles that are unsimple only get tagged not QD'd. The only purpose of the QD reason is to prevent pure copy pastes of complex English Wikipedias. It does not apply to anything coming from anywhere else that isn't a copy paste or for simple English and it should not apply to any of those. I also think it is a bad idea to turn off the translator as the more ways we as a small wiki can get content here the better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Something I think often gets forgotten here is that our Rfd does double duty as prod does on en.wiki. If it doesn't meet the speedy just put it on Rfd. Even if no one votes on it at the end of 7 days it gets deleted. So it is really simple for bad machine translations to be deleted through Rfd. We need less QDing here of content not more. Deciding on whether a translation is "good" or not is too much of a judgement/opinion for QD. Judgements and opinions have to go to Rfd. And I would point out per WP:BEFORE if an article can be fixed, it shouldn't be nominated anyway which is what a bad translation would be if the topic were notable. The appropriate action would be tag {{complex}}. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings in the City of London

I remember we removed all pages on individual buildings in the City because they were being put up by a doubtful source of some kind. They were changed to redirects. An IP has started to remove the redirects, and I have asked him to stop while we discuss it. However, can anyone remind me of the details? Am I right in thinking the source was a spambot, perhaps set up to puff the architects? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a spambot; it was long-term abuse. They mess with redirects. Thoughts on rangeblocking Special:Contribs/ They've used other IP's (which I didn't write down) but this is one of the larger ones. Vermont (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On seeing his full record, I was astonished that he was not blocked before. None of his behaviour was constructive, so I have blocked him for six months. I would not mind if another view is taken, but IMO we do not want this IP on our wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Store closure

Hi, If on an article it has what shops a retail park has and when those shops opened ... and then those shops close - Should the sentence "In 2018, X closed down" be added or should the sentence about the shop opening be removed completely ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it completely. This shows the down side of trying to put up info which is almost bound to change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie will do, Thanks Macdonald-ross, –Davey2010Talk 16:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I would say it depends on the format of the article: use your own judgment. There could be value in having the history. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Auntof6, The format looks like this (Maplin and Carpet have closed), I feel adding a note on the closure would be better but I wasn't sure if that could confuse readers or even if it was needed, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not encyclopedic to have evanescent information unless it is of notable significance. Also, in practice, there's no way we could ever keep up with changing information in hundreds of pages. We can't even keep the football pages updated properly, with all their ever-changing lists of players. But the actual existence of a retail park is long-term, as are large malls. They are good content for pages on towns, along with other features of interest. In Europe, at any rate, virtually all malls and retail parks are within towns or cities. Many are small compared to those in North America or Dubai! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Can an administrator protect Japan from new users. Seems like a sock-farm. //nepaxt 02:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been only one edit in the last 13 days; you reverted that one (and didn't leave a warning for the user, by the way). The users who made the bad edits earlier this month have been blocked and/or locked. I don't think this requires protecting the article at this time. By the way, requests for admin action should be made at WP:AN instead of here. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And, sorry about the AN confusion. For some reason, Twinkle on Simple doesn't leave a warning on talk pages. //nepaxt 03:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not automatically, if that's what you mean. I usually click the user's talk page link after reverting, and Twinkle remembers the article name when I click on the warn option. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Spam...

on here //nepaxt 03:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. We don't usually delete talk pages, but no actual talk had ever been on this page. By the way, as above, ST is not the place for this kind of request. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of A4 QD tags

Recently, I've seen articles marked for quick deletion and some even QD'd that did claim notability, but were QD'd as not-notable. For some of those articles QD'd, or marked for QD, I would have (and with some, have) !voted keep on an RfD. I'm attempting to get a idea of community consensus on this: Is A4 strictly for articles that do not claim notability, or can it be used for articles that are likely not notable? I tend to agree with the former, and believe that articles where notable is questionable or borderline belong at RfD rather than QD. Vermont (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The QD option is for when there is no claim of notability. People might disagree about what constitutes a claim. What was in the articles that looked like a claim? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see a claim of notability as any subject that could possibly be notable, like a television show, whereas a subject not claiming notability would be something like an athlete who has only played in a semi-professional or lower league where the sports notability guideline sets out that semi-professional athletes are not notable, and thus there is no claim. Vermont (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The example that used to get talked about on en all the time was something along the the lines of A4 is for pages that say "Joe is a cool dude." where as a claim would be "Joe is a cool dude who was on a television show". The fact they invoked something like being on a show would make a non-editor go whoa he must have been notable was enough to pass QD, even if he was only an extra. The idea being it was only ever meant for people talking about their buddies. The problem on simple is that some admins started using it as a judgement of notability so gets used on all kinds of people that it was never intended for. Even people who played on semi-pro teams would likely not be valid for A4. The idea being as long as the writer states why they have put them on the wiki then it isn't QDable. Even if the reason they put isn't a good one. If its a bad one it goes to Rfd for deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the intent would be QD for no notability. If I created an article about myself in the main space called "Operator873" and supplied no proof of my notability, that article should be QD'd. However, the Alternate Vice President's Assistant For Information Processing of Adhesive Notes at Company A who was recently included in a news story on Forbes for their contributions to the Information Processing of Adhesive Notes field has extremely weak notability and may not meet WP:ANYBIO... but should be deleted by consensus at RfD instead of QD'd. I'm not 100% sure if my analogy makes any sense, so please ask for clarification if needed. TLDR: No claim: QD. Weak claim: RfD. Operator873CONNECT 00:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is only for when there is no claim made. The claim doesn't even have to be a true claim or actually make them notable. It just has to be a claim that an average person would likely believe could make a person notable. It is a very strict QD that unfortunately does sometimes get over used by some admin. Deciding whether something is actually notable or not has to go to Rfd. No proof is required to avoid this QD, only a claim. If you see some that made a claim and were deleted, undelete them. I often find I have to do that despite my constant reminders you can't delete like that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)````[reply]
I want to clarify a misunderstanding here: "no notability (of the subject)" is not equivalent to "no claim of notability". A subject that is notable will remain notable even if an article does not state any such claim (of course, this article would qualify for A4). This also works in reverse, and is the true intent of QD A4 as it is written: as long as an article makes a claim to notability, even if you do not agree with the notability of the subject itself, the article can only be brought to RFD. Chenzw  Talk  01:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new proposal to close down Simple English Wikipedia

See m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia 2. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also Talk:Main Page#This project is not reaching a target audience. Propose closure and integration with En Wiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July In case anyone's interested, there has been quite a bit of discussion so far. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commented already on this one. I'm disgusted that it's even being considered for closure. The English Wikipedia is hardly even close to accessible for ESOL and EFL speakers, so losing this project will fly in the face of what we stand for - making the sum of all human knowledge available to everyone. Shouldn't we centralnotice this proposal and have it as a banner, warning of the potential closure? DaneGeld (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, it looks about 2:1 in favor of keeping the project open (about 45:25)...--Eptalon (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first go around at this, and it won't be the last even if it goes in our favour. This happens relatively regularly, someone who doesn't edit here thinks they know better so they try to close it. No point getting too worked up about it, just go have your say there on either side of the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well my note at meta seems to have done the intended job, I've attracted the attention of Doc James, who's board liason to LANGCOM. I will defend this project to death, Djsasso. Until ENWP's articles are written in a much easier way, we have a place and no way am I letting it go down! DaneGeld (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I just saw this title, I checked to see that it wasn't an old post from April 1 that i had missed. Simple English Wikipedia is really useful for my EFL students. In many cases, the English version is unusable for them. Kdammers (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers: Then please give that input at the discussion on Meta-Wiki: that would be very helpful, because several people are arguing that EFL/ESL students don't know about Simple or don't use it. To address the questions in your edit summary: the content of every Wikipedia is independent. However, they all live on WikiMedia servers, so WikiMedia has the right to say who can be there. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw the L O M G E R vandal at Meta had been here too. Ironic isn't it, that one of the reasons EN want to shut us down is because we attract vandals, and then the proposal to shut our project down also attracts a vandal! Some days, you just cannot win! I would LOL, but I'm not sure how to feel. DaneGeld (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably add I unfortunately support the proposal.... I enjoy editing here don't get me wrong but yeah I've said my peace over there, I'd prefer change over closure tho. –Davey2010Talk 22:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote of confidence. Maybe we can start change from the inside then. You first! >:( DaneGeld (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting stub templates in articles; stub types

I'd like to remind everyone that when you put a stub template in an article, please leave two blank lines before it. That is so that the output from the template visually stands out from any text that's right above it. You can see the difference by looking at the following versions of an article:

If there is more than one stub type that applies to an article, you can use the {{multistub}} template. This allows specifying between two and six stub types at a time.

I believe the current thinking on where to place stub templates is at the very end of an article, even after the categories. However, that used to be different, so you sometimes see them before the categories, and AWB sometimes moves them higher.

Finally, a reminder that new stub types/templates/categories need to be approved before being used. One of the ways this wiki keeps things simple is by limiting the number of different stub types. We don't need the stub categories to mirror the main content categories. It's also not seen as useful to have a stub type if no one is specifically working on the articles in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they are supposed to be below the categories like en does with them, AWB has a bug and moves them because I believe it doesn't recognize our templates as being stubs and templates that are not stubs go ahead of categories, I keep meaning to ask the devs to fix it but I never seem to get around to it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content Translation will expand Machine Translation support for Simple English

Based on several editor requests, we plan to update the configuration of Content Translation to expand the Machine Translation support to include Simple English. Users translating content from and into Simple English will be able to use an automatic translation as an initial version for them to improve (and the tool will encourage them to do so).

This feature has been available for many languages, including some partial support for Simple English using Apertium, but it requires further adjustments to support those languages provided by Yandex. We plan to enable this extended support in the following days.

We don’t expect this change to have a big impact in article creation or disrupt the workflow of reviewers on Simple English Wikipedia. Content Translation is more often used to create content by translating from English into other languages, rather than the other way around. In the last three years, about 425 articles have been created in Simple English Wikipedia using Content Translation, and more than half of them have been created from English Wikipedia, where Machine Translation will not be available in any case.

In case you want to take a closer look to the content created with the tool, an edit tag allows to filter recent changes to review articles created with Content Translation. We are very interested in supporting contributors in the best possible way. If there is any issue related to this, please let us know in the project talk page and we’ll adjust the configuration and consider further suggestions for the upcoming version of the tool.


--Pginer-WMF (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC) - on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Language team.[reply]

This will be really helpful! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have acquired a module sandbox, which I guess could be useful. However, it appears to have interlanguage !inks to regular article-type sandboxes. Can someone see where those are coming from and fix it? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry: I marked this as patrolled before seeing this. Milo, Talk, Contribs 18:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a big deal. However, as part of patrolling, please consider whether a new page is even needed. The editor who created this also created a disambiguation sandbox, which I deleted because the regular sandbox can be used for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it would be useful, since the normal sandbox can't be used for the same purposes as this one? Milo, Talk, Contribs 19:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this one probably is: when I wrote that I was thinking of some of the others that the user created. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN errors

Hello all. This is just a small notice. You may or may not be aware that magic links (like using the word ISBN followed by a number of digits) will probably be removed from MediaWiki as a feature sometime in the near future. If you are interested, you can read the discussion at mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links and phab:T145604. The solution is to use the {{ISBN}} template to preserve the links, i.e. outwardly there is no difference in how the link appears and where it points to. If you fancy helping, there is a considerable collection at Category:Pages using ISBN magic links. Just be aware of ones that have red letters after the ISBN number, because that indicates the number is wrong. Those errors need to more careful checking e.g. you can search at WorldCat.org. Any help is welcome. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Green Giant. If I understand correctly, different versions of a given book (for example, different editions, or hardcover vs. paperback) have different ISBNs. That means that the page numbers could be different in different versions. For that reason, if we find an incorrect ISBN that has a page number associated with it, extra care might need to be taken when correcting the ISBN to make sure we don't end up with incorrect page numbers. Possible actions in these cases:
  • Look at the actual book to verify the ISBN and page number.
  • Leave the bad ISBN as it is.
  • Remove the page number.
  • Check the enwiki article to see if they have a good ISBN with a page number.
However, I am not an expert in this, so input is welcome from anyone who knows more about it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can put something together to take care of the ones that don't have errors easy enough. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm sure you can do it more easily than I can. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You probably could too. I ran a small run earlier, I will do some more now. Any errors my changes make will end up in Category:Pages with ISBN errors. There are already some there from before me. Anything in there will need to be looked at manually as mentioned above. -DJSasso (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy to RemexHtml

m:User:Elitre (WMF) 14:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at the mythology section of this article? I think it's ungrammatical, needs simplifying, and maybe should even be removed (this article is about the village, not the temple). The same text is was added to the enwiki article a while back. However, not being very familiar with Hindu mythology, I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look, and it so badly written to be incompressible, recommend deleting it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the whole section. If anyone feels it should be included, I would expect it to be at least intelligible, not to say easy to understand for our audience.--Eptalon (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed with Template:Infobox

This template appears to add Category:Infobox templates to all templates that use it. I'm looking for a way to suppress that, because some of the templates that use it are in a more specific infobox template category. However, since this template now invokes a module, I don't know how to read it to see if there's a way to suppress the category. Can someone who can read Lua take a look and see if there's a way or if we can create a way? Thanks.

For an example of what I'm talking about, look at Template:Infobox ballet: it's in both Category:Infobox templates and Category:Entertainment infobox templates. It shouldn't need to be in both. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the more specific ones are the ones I would get rid of in this case since there are so few infobox templates. For some categories being in both are acceptable as well. I think this is possibly one of those situations. Either way I am not a huge fan of changing our infobox templates from being the same as en (unless its a complex language issue), because when some people did it in the past what it did was cause the templates to never be updated because it became too much work so people didn't do it. So our templates have become a huge mess, which is why I have been updating them over the last several months to try to fix them all cause man they are a mess. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Created the Wikiproject Russia

I just created the Wikiproject Russia. Join if you'd like! :)

--Alicezeppelin (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global preferences are available

19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Just conveying message

Hi, can someone explain to user:AThousand why their article was quick deleted under A4, they seemed to ask on zhwiki reference desk.here, Google translate if need be, I don't bother to translate. I think this is better venue than a reference desk where none of us are editors here. FYI if necessary.--Cohaf (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

title is 关简易英文版一速删方针疑问 if needed.--Cohaf (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: You deleted: care to do the honors? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For context, the zhwiki version is now tagged with {{notability}} after the query and will be AFD or RFD per the alphabet soup here in 30 days if not improved.--Cohaf (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to request deletion

I'm not active in simple Wikipedia some not quite sure what your processes are for requesting deletion.

I've been exchanging emails with a major contributor to: David Benton


While I'm not at liberty to share the contents of the email without obtaining permission from the person sending us the email, if you look at the article I linked I think you will quickly conclude that they made a mistake in starting this in the simple Wikipedia — they meant to started in the English Wikipedia.

I am NOT requesting that it be moved, if such a thing is even possible. There are a number of problems which I'm not able to go into now but my expectation is that this article will be abandoned and if not, it should be started over ab initio in the English Wikipedia.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Quick Delete by author request created. Operator873talkconnect 17:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - alternatively, the last good simple version is here. Operator873talkconnect 17:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There were many users involved so deleting this might not be a good idea and there was community RFD too. Reverting it to last simple version is a better idea.-BRP ever 18:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the QD because the original author didn't make the request and didn't write most of the current article. Even if that author had done those, I might have declined because reverting to the earlier version is a better option. Besides that, the article already survived an RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]