Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 125

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarification of voter eligibility

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.

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TDKR Chicago 101 2 a vote was stricken. There are some uncertainty about whether it's an SUL or local account. I then propose that WP:CFD under who can vote to add the date of creation of named account should be based on the date of creation of an attached local account in this wiki. Ideas?--Cohaf (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please conduct this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship. That way, we'll have the record of it connected to the page that it affects. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not much of the community, save for the few who watch that page, will notice it there. I was under the impression that the purpose of ST was to conduct discussions like this for community consensus. Vermont (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator note: Moving this to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship

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.

info-simple OTRS queue

A new OTRS queue was created for Simple English. It is at and If you want to help answer emails, you can volunteer at meta:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone help me check my AF log?

I triggered the abuse filter when trying to reverting another user's edit on Temperature,Filter description: ** vandalism.(I guess I cannot say the word before vandalism ?) Then every time I submit my edit I would encouter the warning and my autopromote is blocked. Pages include Hangzhou, Wikipedia:Simple talk and even my talkpage. Can anyone help me check the AF log ? I do not think I am doing something wrong. Thank you.--94rain Talk 01:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@94rain: I'm reviewing the log now. This page also tracks change filter mistakes. Operator873talkconnect 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@94rain: After review, most of your edits hit global filter 163. You'll need to go to meta to report issues with that because I can't even see those. The only time you hit local filters was using a word ( ** vandalism) which can easily be fixed. That filter shouldn't be an issue for your much longer. Again, as far as the global filter, I'm sorry, I can't help. The local filter, well.. avoid use of that word. Operator873talkconnect 01:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873:Thank you. I will report it on meta then.--94rain Talk 02:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference list formatting

How would I propose converting the labeling of reference list sections? Take List of Ekushey Padak winners in Education and research for example, 12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Ministry of Cultural Affairs, p. 1 if you where to look at similar formatting on enwiki you would see 12 a b c d Ministry of Cultural Affairs, p. 1. Can we use the lettering system here? Nunabas (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone? Nunabas (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I imagine you would propose it here, on this page. Why do you think we should change, and what would be involved in doing the change? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from what I can tell it would involve changing 3 interface messages [1] Nunabas (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. That doesn't say why we should change, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If your looking for why, Using letters is better for readability. take 12↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 vs 12^ a b c d especially in reference sections where text is smaller. Take List of WWE alumni we have 181↑ 181.01 181.02 181.03 181.04 181.06 181.07 181.08 181.09 181.10 181.11 181.12 vs 181^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Nunabas (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest I find the numbers more simple than letters. It is clear that it is reference 181 and instance 1 or 2 etc. Whereas the letters don't make that clear. I am guessing that is why it is what we use here. Remember we try to be simple in all things, not just the language. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we have different perspectives then, I find the letters easier and simpler. Nunabas (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should be clear, that I don't have a strong opinion. I was just pointing out why we might have gone the number route. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Good article: Oxalaia

Hello all, I just promoted Oxalaia, it is outr 61st Good article. Congratulations to all tohse who contributed, and helped it get this status.--Eptalon (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frequently vandalized page to add to your watchlist

John F. Kennedy has been getting vandalized again. (It happens to this page now and then.) It's not frequent enough to semi-protect, but maybe some of you would like to add it to your watchlist so we van catch vandalism sooner. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added, how I wish there's pending changes here, nice case to apply it.--Cohaf (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cohaf, if there's consensus we could ask devs for it. Vermont (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vermont.I see, but how's the process and who can be allowed to review pending changes are things we have to sort out. Happy to discuss further. --Cohaf (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to have pending changes on all our vulnerable pages. We have had some pages vandalised again and again and again. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not the biggest fan of pending changes, especially in a small community as good edits end up sitting forever to be checked, at least in my experience seeing it on other small wiki's. It is always added with good intentions but not sure with such a small community that it would end up being any better than just watch listing pages. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't trhink pending changes (or whatever you call thew procedure) is a good idea on this wiki. This community isa too small to implement it. As an alternative, I'd see semi-protection (limit to autoconfirmed), or a special set of editfilters which would tag edits by new users/known LTAs on certain pages. And if we must: how many pages are we talking about, and how long till a piece of well-identified vandalism was reverted? - Without numbers, there's no meaningful discussion (except for the measures I proposed). --Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there are many regularly vandalized pages that aren't immediately caught. Even the one that started this section has hardly been vandalized (in terms of edits per month). Using the one in this section as an example, it did get a bit of a burst of vandalism last October but then it slowed down. Could probably have put a short temporary semi-protection on it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, my use of frequent was meant to be relative, meaning often enough that more people watching might be helpful. I also watch the page on JFK's assassination, and the pages on Lincoln and his assassination for the same reason, as well as others. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pending changes seems like a good idea, but I agree with those who said above that we probably aren't big enough to keep up with it. We already don't keep up with patrolling new pages: we have pages that roll out of Special:NewPages without being patrolled. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually we can turn on pending changes as a backup. When there's a need, at least it is fitted. Otherwise I guess although protection isn't predictive or anticipating, we can protect high risk article temporarily, e.g. During midterm elections result day, politicians articles often got vandalised, hence, we can preempt a short 1-2 days semi on some of the articles. Best,--Cohaf (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Auntof6, Vermont, Macdonald-ross, Djsasso, and Eptalon: administrator. Since all the time, "Phases of the Moon" is vandalized too, yesterday again. Why did not anyone ask for a sp? For the rest, this page has changed so little that a protection does nothing to IP. By putting pages in watchlist, it is already complicated. Wikipedially. Ping me to talk to me. --Eihel (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC template - Analogue/Analog & Digital

Hi, Just wondering should "Analogue" and "Digital" be removed from Template:BBC (thus just leaving tv/radio stations/other services),
Going by Analog_television#Transition_to_digital (at EN) most countries have switched over - Russia's expected to switch over in July 2019 and the Philippines in 2020/2021,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO the template should be updated... not going to provide suggestions since this isn't a topic I'd rather delve into but the proposal seems relatively rational. Hiàn (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, rational enough to change.--Cohaf (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks Hiàn, I wasn't too sure myself so wanted a second opinion, Anyway many thanks :), –Davey2010Talk 19:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sock creating hoax articles

Could someone have a look at Special:Contributions/ This is the same sock as the one described here. Uanfala (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think its part of the Pakistan POV Pusher we have had before. Just blocked, and removed their content. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This error message should be adding pages to Category:Pages with broken reference names but its not.... Nunabas (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've updated the code, but the job queue could take awhile to move pages if there are any. There may not be any. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep filling up now. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the country was renamed, shall we move the title of the title to the new name? Open for community inputs. Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think so, especially since enwiki has renamed theirs. We'd need to rename the associated categories and articles, too, not just the main article. Changing links to the article could come after that, but not all those links would need to be changed: references to things that happened before the name change should probably either stay the same or be changed but have an explanatory note added. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, at present that is definitely not the most commonly used title in English (a main criterion for page naming). If the bureaucratic compromise sticks and becomes general usage, then it would be proper to move the title. One should remember that its UN name is still FYRM! -- Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia... The language ordinary people use is very resistant to change. For example, the use of 'Holland' instead of 'the Netherlands' is so common that even the Dutch government uses it on many of its English-language sites. A title is not just about "it's official, so we use it". It is also about what our readers are most familiar with. We have titles of pages on birds as common names (and not the scientific names), even though the common names are often ambiguous. From the readers' perspective we are probably right to do it this way. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We technically on Simple English shouldn't have the names at common names for animals as they are often ambiguous and thus not simple. I have been fixing this as I find them and usually end up matching them to the name. The whole idea of scientific names being to transcend language which goes right along with our mission (as "common names" can be different based on language or region a person is from thus sticking to scientific name which is used across all languages and countries is simpler). For topics like countries, generally current use outweighs commonname as people seeing an old name will just assume we are incorrect as opposed to it being common usage. It is why current sources carry a higher weight than older sources when determining names of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone take a look at this article? Besides being uncategorized (which is how I found it), it seems to need... something. Maybe it's too Wikimedia-centric, or maybe it just needs to own up to being a Wikimedia topic; I'm not sure. Ideas? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems fine to me. Just needs the normal formatting a small article like that always typically needs. Could definitely use expanding but that isn't all that unusual. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. Most of it is fine and needs cleanup, as DJ says. But it seems to me that the third paragraph is really a "how-to" instruction, and more properly belongs at WP:Transclusion (which already exists and has the information). StevenJ81 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What leaps out to my eye is the use of "article" and "page" which indeed is how we use transclusion in MediaWiki. However, my understanding is that the term applies to a method used in many other kinds of document, suggesting that the vaguer "document" might be more appropriate, and the Wiki-use should be a mere example. So, yes, too Wikimedia-centric for my taste. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion for Wikipedia motto

"A little bit of knowledge can be a beautiful thing" - (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does "create account" page have a link "request an account" that links here, when this page doesn't reference requesting an account?

The "create account" page, Create account, has a CAPTCHA image. Under the image are the words "Request an account" and a link to a page, "Request an account". That page, Request an account, redirects to the page I'm writing this on, Simple talk. As far as I can tell, there are no instructions on this page, Simple talk, telling users how to use the page to request an account.

I successfully created an account using the CAPTCHA image. I'm only posting this because I'm concerned for other users.

Kindnesstheorist (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. I'm thinking it may be beneficial to use OTRS as an account request process rather than here. Dewiki does this, and enwiki has ACC, which is a bit similar. Vermont (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really it should be here, we want less places for admins to look for such things, to be honest OTRS is too much overhead for this wiki, it really should have been discussed more before being created. All a user has to do is post here there is nothing to really explain. And to be honest I don't think in the 10+ years I have been editing here that we have ever had someone ask to have an account created on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering how low the demand is for account creation, I now agree with you that here is the best place. In regard to OTRS, it's useful to have a queue for people to email into for Simple English projects; there's already a few OTRS agents and there is no backlog. Vermont (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk to us about talking

Trizek (WMF) 15:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideas for a writing assistance tool

What would your ideal tool look like, for helping any editor here to write better Simple English articles? I've long appreciated the Hemingwayapp and Upgoer6 tools, which take different approaches to highlighting complex sentences or vocabulary. What variation on those ideas, do you think could potentially be good on this wiki?

I've often wanted to contribute here more frequently, but I always feel hampered by not having a good sense of which words are too complex. I think having a tool something like those 2, embedded in the editing window (toggleable, of course), might help people like me to be more active.

I wrote some notes on the idea at phab:T135321 a while ago, and now I'm asking folks here for more feedback on whether you think this might be helpful at all? If so, what specific features would need to be included (or excluded) in order for it to be a clear success? (All dependent on if a programmer is ever inspired to implement it, or if it goes into next years' wishlist, etc). Thanks for any thoughts! Quiddity (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the idea that being simple is somewhat purposefully vague we have found in the past when people have tried to create tools that you can't really have such tools to help you because beyond the Simple English word list there are no concrete rules or lists of words that work for a computer which needs such things. Computers just aren't up to the task of creating simple articles. (by that I mean helping) But you shouldn't be feel hampered. Assuming you are a fluent English speaker it is pretty easy to know if something is too complex. Someone in the past created a firefox dictionary for simple English which some people liked using but again that only helps with word lists and not so much sentence structure. Really most of how things are written here come down to instinct. Some people also run what they write through reading level tools. But that doesn't always match up with our goals either. You probably are not going to find the answer in tools unfortunately. That being said the Hemingwayapp is a nice one to get some hints from, but you couldn't do everything it says. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: Thanks for the reply. 2 small additions:
[edited] Here's an example of our intro to "Earth" run though Upgoer6 if you click on the highlighted words, it shows the words ranking from a Frequency list).
I'll add there's also Upgoer5 - If you paste in the same text to that, it provides a list of words that are not in the top 1,000, and if you mouseover those words it gives thesaurus-alternatives. It doesn't work brilliantly, but has possibilities...?
They're both very simple tools (I imagine they were weekend projects for the developer), but I think they (and hemingwayapp and similar) hint at very interesting possibilities, if given some more thought. Especially thought over time... (eventualism!). I think it would be good to have something a few years from now to make it easier for overly grandiloquent/lexiphanic/erudite writers (and maybe even for English-beginners) to easily adjust to this specialization, and to give starting points for more people to whittle away at Category:Complex pages. :-)
(Addendum) Oh, could you/anyone point me towards any past attempts to make tools? I searched but could not easily find. Thanks again. Quiddity (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example: I think the Upgoer6 idea could be improved for our use-cases by simply decreasing the amount of coloration for all basic words (those on the usual (both restricted and expansive) basic word lists and from frequency lists). There's too much signal-to-noise (colour) in the existing version for our needs, but it would be handy to know when a word that I think is common is actually more obscure in global or English-learner usage. Quiddity (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We've been over this ground so many times. Our best editors of prose do it by writing simply: they are experts at doing it. Anyone who thinks a tool can help them is welcome to try it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Macdonald-ross: Yes, but our best editors of prose are very few in number and have limited time to write and fix content. The rest of the world, the non-experts, could benefit from some assistance/hints/clues with the various tasks and backlogs. Please don't dismiss the idea just because you and the best others don't need it! -- If you could give me any pointers towards previous attempts at tools, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Quiddity (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot ideas

Hello community. I've recently finished the framework for an IRC enabled bot that can perform all API functions on Wikipedia. My intent was to design a bot that can fight spambots and proxies, but I'd like to see what other things the community would like in a potential long-term bot. A few disclaimers, the bot does not have the capability to and is not intended to replace ChenzwBot. The anti-vandalism role is well handled currently. However, I would be open to building a supporting role including assisting sysops. To be clear, I'm not currently seeking a bot approval and my bot's Wikipedia account, Bot873 will remain inactive. All testing is being done on my personal MediaWiki wiki. There is no idea too obscure or too small. I'd like to entertain all possibilities. Operator873talkconnect 03:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know what IRC is, but what is API? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: Sorry... I was caught up in my nerd lingo. I was referring to the MediaWiki Action API which is built into all projects. It's what AWB and similar scripts use to edit, query, and parse information on our wiki. Operator873talkconnect 05:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearing responded user reported VIP reports per a determined duration? Archiving RFPs?--Cohaf (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ChenzwBot already does that first item on the bot page, in a way. Before setting up a new bot to do a similar task, let's see if we can and want to leverage that existing process. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cohaf: I agree with Auntof6 on that one. As a programmer, I am a strict believer in not attempting to reinvent the wheel. If code exists, and code works well, let code work. ChenzwBot does a fantastic job and only needs a slight kick in the process every now and then. I don't want to have my future bot interfere with its operation at all. I do think we can look at some automated reporting tasks though. Operator873talkconnect 06:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No issues with that, I'm just throwing random ideas. Overdue RfDs, QDs beyond a period of time, clearing the RFCU page? Tagging school or shared IP on IP talkpages which has more than an amount of warnings? --Cohaf (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cohaf: - The bot can already report pending QDs, RfDs, and unblock requests when requested on IRC. However, it makes no on-wiki changes. I like your thoughts so far! Keep 'em coming! edit: Since you're a regular on IRC, send me a ping there and I'll show you those commands. Operator873talkconnect 06:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The bot can already report..." Report them where? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an IRC bot so it reports them on IRC. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really such thing as an overdue RfD here as the 7 days is just a minimum here. And as a CU I definitely don't want RfCU cleared or if it is not any faster than a number of months (like atleast 6). It is very useful to leave the requests there for us. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873: Thanks. I like nerd lingo as much as the next Wikipedian, but my data processing experience is more on mainframes so I'm not as familiar with this kind of thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One more question: what do you mean when you say the bot is IRC-enabled? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: The bot exists and can interact with approved users on IRC. The framework was built to support command directed bot actions from privileged users from IRC. I understand your concerns about using IRC that we've discussed before so I can't effectively demonstrate what my bot currently does for Wikipedians off-wiki. However, I can direct you to it's documentation page for an overview. Operator873talkconnect 06:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest something as nuanced as proxy and spambot fighting (depending on what you mean by fighting) is not really effectively done by a bot. And to be honest, other than a bit of a flurry we got this last week or so, isn't all that common on our wiki. Personally I am not a fan of bots doing things that require judgement. The anti vandal bot we have is about as far as I can see myself going in that direction. For me bots (on-wiki) are only for things that are black and white. Maybe its because of what my profession is (I literally break software all day) that I don't trust bots to handle dealing with spambots and proxies. And without CU/Admin powers there is not much they could do anyway other than maybe make a list of hey this account was block/locked on x wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: I completely agree. The bot I'm building, as I mentioned before, would be primarily command directed. Or in other words, would not act or do much of anything without a human telling it exactly what to do, especially when it comes to something like the idea of combating spam. There are definitely some things I could program it to do or edit on wiki, with little or no needed supervision... But I'm much much more comfortable with something that can perform tasks that are directed by privileged users. This also let's me log who directed what action at what time for what reason and creates an additional layer of protection for me, the bot, and most importantly the project. Operator873talkconnect 16:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As this discussion progresses, it's becoming more clear to me that those who do not use IRC will not really see the full scope of the project. I've invited the community to join us before and, while I understand the reservations and reasons for not using IRC, it really is difficult for me to explain or demonstrate the utility of what I'm working on. Those who avoid IRC for concerns of privacy, I highly encourage you to utilize IRCCloud. It's free, web-based, and you do not connect directly to the IRC server so your information and privacy are protected. IRCCloud acts like a (sorry for x-wiki link) BNC which, in a way, is similar to a VPN. The only IP address revealed to freenode and other IRC users with IRCCloud is the server for IRCCloud itself. I'm not asking for those not interested in IRC participation to begin participating on IRC, but I would like to invite the community to, at minimum, see what the bot can do by briefly visiting our dedicated channel #wikipedia-simple. If you're hesitant about creating an account with them for privacy reasons, send me an email and I'll explain the further options I can provide to you for additional protection of your privacy. I do not, in anyway, want to suggest IRC is or should be mandatory or a forum for discussing policy. I know for certain that several sysops who use IRC are just as devoted as I am about ensuring IRC remains a tool and not a forum for WP discussions. Operator873talkconnect 00:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really the issue you are having is that it is an IRC tool and not really all that relevant to actual on-wiki use so you aren't going to get much discussion here about it as most don't use it. No real issue with people using IRC but after awhile you realize it isn't all that helpful and more often than not causes more on-wiki issues than it helps. Ironically just the other day I was thinking about how there is such standard way a lot of editors end up on this wiki, first they get here and go crazy vandal fighting and then they find IRC and think they have found something great and come here trying to convince everyone to join because its so amazing. Then after they have some time under their belt they try to get admin and once they get it and have it for a bit they get bored and decide they need a bot (usually on-wiki). So it has kind of amused me that you are almost been following the path step by step though you have changed it up with it being an IRC bot instead of an on-wiki bot. And that isn't any shade or anything. It is just that we have one or two people do it every year so I find it amusing. Hopefully you don't take the next step and disappear a few months later which often happens. What we really need on this wiki more than any of those bot things and really even more than vandal fighting is content creation. We have so very little of that now-a-days. People mostly just come here to wack vandals and that is sad. -DJSasso (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: I've responded to your comment with several concerns on your talk page. It was too much for this page and not really on topic so I moved it there for the community's sake. I will take a moment and respond here with I'm not seeking approval or ideas pertaining to the IRC bot. This is probably my fault as I'm not good with communicating with people in general. I'm building an on-wiki bot and requesting input and ideas from the community. This on-wiki bot will communicate with and be a part of the IRC bot, but they are two distinct entities. My hope is each bot working together will be greater than the sum of its parts. Currently, I have built 4 IRC bots that serve various projects. I have not, nor plan to, request approval or on-wiki input for those bots as they do not serve the on-wiki community, as you pointed out. I am seeking input from the community for tasks the on-wiki bot might perform. Such as the category filled with articles with broken wikt links, as on editor suggested on IRC. Or perhaps one of countless other maintenance cats filled with work that isn't being done. I'm happy to build the bot to do trivial tasks like reporting in its own userspace suspicious edits that need a second look by anyone with the desire to review edits. Full disclosure: yes, I plan to build supervisory and command directed functions into the bot that will be primarily IRC based. But, your comment gave me an interesting idea about on-wiki users editing the bot's userpage with a request or spamlink, then the bot reading the userpage, reporting that task to me so I can then code a solution and unleash the bot fix. Thank you for that. Operator873talkconnect 06:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Random Idea again, a bot to detect spamlinks can be like meta COIbot. We can plough through the pages to weed out spamlinks that are embedded in other websites or etc. --Cohaf (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That actually might be a nice one. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to me like that page is actually encouraging people to actually edit that page itself. I know there are bots cleaning it up hourly thus no one can do long-term damage to that page, but I still believe a better idea is to send them to the actual sandbox if they want to actually try editing: this way they will be taught that if they want to mess around, use the sandbox, not just any page on the website. What do you think? User670839245 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is actually encouraging them to edit that page. It is basically a sandbox specifically for our classes that do student projects here. We want them to do it there as part of the tutorial without making them leave the tutorial. One of the rules for good user experience when doing things like tutorials is to keep users on the tutorials and not send them all over the place as user tend to wander off and not come back if you do that. As such we have that page for them to try. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urgent help needed: something is very broken, likely a template issue

Please see User talk:Auntof6#Template:Marriage/doc for info about an issue that is affecting many articles. Can anyone help? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Auntof6:, I did this and I think it is fixed for now. Once the RFD is closed I think the tag can be removed.--BRP ever 09:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BRPever: Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candace Owens

I looked up Candace Owens on Wikipedia just to find out if she is married. What I read was a left-wing political slam on her. The article says that it is locked to prevent "vandalism." Wikipedia is usually balanced. I've been a donor for a couple of years for that reason. Please delete that article and start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickistanton (talkcontribs) 05:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vickistanton: I think you are on the wrong Wikipedia. It doesn't look like we ever had an article on Candace Owens here on Simple English Wikipedia. There is one on the regular English Wikipedia. That article is only semiprotected, so you should be able to edit it yourself if you are autoconfirmed there. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two templates here serve the same function. No articles use Template:Infobox drug; they all seem to use Template:Drugbox. The two templates don't appear completely interchangeable, though: Infobox drug uses Template:Infobox, whereas Drugbox does not. I tried using Infobox drug in place of Drugbox in a couple of pages, and there was an error (although it only shows while in edit, not in a saved article).

On enwiki, en:Template:Drugbox is a redirect to en:Template:Infobox drug, which uses en:Template:Infobox.

In Wikidata, our Drugbox template is linked to enwiki's Infobox drug.

We don't need two templates that do the same thing. We could redirect one to the other, but which one? I usually favor using Template:Infobox for our infoboxes, but I don't know if that's really better. Your thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both are fairly technical but I'd support using Infobox drug - whichever the readers can understand easier I'd support using. Hiàn (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is my bad. I forgot to redirect the old one when I brought over the new one. If you see errors let me know. Usually that is just deprecated parameters that get cleaned up over time. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Went through and made sure they were all compatible now. Nothing more needs to be done really. But to answer your question, we should almost always use the same as because inevitably that is where most people grab and paste infoboxes from. Unless there is some really good reason to use something different, but I haven't really found one yet. Infoboxes other than some wording choices are the epitome of simple since they are basically straight facts. It's why I have been trying to clean up our infoboxes, the vast majority of them were broken as people bring over one template but don't bring over the ones that it relies on etc. There will likely be errors from doing this but those are the price to pay for keeping up to date so things don't get impossible to fix in the future and its usually easy to fix those small errors. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User pages guidelines

The recent discussions about the proper use of user pages, see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/User:Tris T7, shows that we need to have clear and concise guidelines for such pages. Comments please.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we have this discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page, so that the record of it stays attached to the relevant guideline? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should indeed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we already have such a guideline. I think the people at the discussion either didn't read it or were operating on an "I don't like it" argument. To boil it down to a simple sentence. Anything that has to do with building a wiki is eligible to be on a user page. We are very accepting about pretty much anything on userpages as long as they relate to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that we also allow some personal info. I think the issue here is that we've seen some recent user pages where the personal info seemed promotional or excessive (users using their user page as a web host or social media). In any case, I repeat: let's have this discussion on the guideline's talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well the personal information is supposed to relate the purpose of building as well. We also already have guidelines for webhost stuff. And personally I prefer discussions here so they get seen by the most eyes. This page has a searchable archive for a reason. But whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For this case, if they are an active user, I don't think the gallery is excessive. However, my point here and as stated in the RFD is that they are not an active user, but they are elsewhere, why not host the files at the wiki they are more active in / active in. I note that the gallery causes Commons Delinker bot to remove files and flooding RC at one time that it has to be twice giving the bot flag. Admin time was spent, RC watchers may miss a vandal when the bot was flooding. Basically this isn't contributing to the cause of this version of wikipedia. As long as the Userpage doesn't waste volunteer time as well as not negatively contribute to the encyclopedia, why not? As for venue, this whole conversation can be moved to the talkpage when it's concluded. My 2 cents. --Cohaf (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flooding the RC is not as big a deal as some would make it out to be as you can easily filter out the delinker bot and see all the other edits. There is zero benefit to scaring away a potential new editor by deleting their userpage. Perhaps they intended to become active here and were instead scared away by this. AGF comes into play here, there is a very large leeway on what can be on a userpage and this easily fell within it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am talking about this particular case, see the SUL of that user Special:CentralAuth/Tris_T7. Clearly they can put this gallery somewhere else (they have so many edits and so many projects they are active in). Why can't they host it somewhere else, one guess is that all the other projects they are heavily involved in may not allow them to do so. For such cases, by deleting their userpage we won't scare of them but rather prevent this site to be a dump / host for other projects. Their local contribution are just to the userpage + the rest is to the AFD. This is borderline disruptive in my opinion (as that page now had expanded to a size that I had problem loading it). On the other hand, if it is a very new editor doing this, I will be very concerned are they really wanting or able to build the encyclopedia. For these editors, I will play some AGF. I recommending talking to them and asking them, offering rope and teaching them editing (or even vandal fighting - although I personally don't like the fact for very new editors to be just into vandal fighting). If despite all these efforts, they still continue to build up nothing but a huge gallery of images, we will need to consider whether they are building an encyclopedia. This should be differentiated to a regular editor such as someone who regularly edits, yes, no issues then. I wish to note that the commonsdelinker as well as the rest of the edits took up valuable sever capacity (although deleted edits also), but to stop it in time prevent more sever space being taken and severs are all paid out of donor monies. We have to put good use what WMF given to us. I hope this clarifies Djsasso. --Cohaf (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize you were, I was sort of pointing out that this editor was a new editor here and quite possibly was looking to become a regular editor here. But I would point out that deleting the page isn't going to save any server space as deleting it only stops it from being visible and doesn't actually delete it. Server space should never be a consideration in deleting, its why we have WP:NOTPAPER. The cost of storage is negligible in the quantities they use. There is no difference between regular and non-regular users, if its a valid use (which in this case it most definitely was) then the user page can't be deleted. Even if they were gone for a long time. We don't have classes of editors. And we support all the different wikimedia projects, we are all under the same umbrella, simple isn't a special club that if you don't regularly edit you don't get all the privileges of. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that we agree to disagree in this area. I don't have much more to say but I took your points, and they are valid too and relevant also. The key here is valid use of userpage and if it's the community feels this is ok, I'm fine as Wikipedia operates on consensus. --Cohaf (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move

Can an admin please move World Trade Center (1973-2001) to World Trade Center (1973–2001) for grammatical reasons. IWI (chat) 11:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso:World Trade Center (1973-2001) now can be deleted as nothing links there and it's a sort of typo? --Cohaf (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually its a perfect example of when you should have a redirect. The difference between a hyphen and an endash is a very common typo. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What actually I meant is that very seldom will people search World Trade Center (1997-2001) in full, if it's like W-T vs W–T it's plausible as the common typo is in front. --Cohaf (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You never know. Redirects are cheap so we might as well leave it. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sort of figured out redirects are cheap after typing, so yep, leave it is best. Sorry for the fuss. --Cohaf (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah was about to point out en:Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap but I got pulled away. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enwiki link

Is it just me who finds it impossible to get from an enwiki page to the Simple English version via the bar on the left? If not, is there a reason for this? IWI (chat) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might just be you, I don't have a problem with it at all. That being said I also wrote a script to make it even easier, but it doesn't work when our title is different than theirs. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what would be causing it? (Also, can you block the latest personal attacker visible on new changes, it’s an ongoing thing.) IWI (chat) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did it I can see. IWI (chat) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well you will have to explain what is hard about it for you? I click the link and it takes me there. Not sure where the hard part is. Perhaps more detail is needed. -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link simply isn’t there. IWI (chat) 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If its not there for a given page it usually means doesn't have the page or the article is so new that it has never been linked on wikidata yet. If it is just that it is not linked yet then you can click the change links link and do so. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for my wording, I meant getting to simple from enwiki. IWI (chat) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be the same situation in reverse. However the list is alphabetical so we are usually below the "expand" line so you probably have to expand to see all the links. We start with an S so are down low on their list whereas they are an E so are up high on ours. -DJSasso (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s not in the expand either, even when there are only a few languages linked. IWI (chat) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then as I said we don't have the article or it is not linked yet. -DJSasso (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a widespread issue, even when I know there is an article on simple, the latest example that prompted me here being the Momo Challenge hoax (corresponds to en:Momo Challenge hoax. IWI (chat) 21:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is there 4th from the bottom. -DJSasso (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They didn't include us in the new "Languages" section on the sidebar. See phabricator:T210840. It's been tagged as high priority for about two and a half months now. Vermont (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict) Yes but on en:Momo Challenge hoax, Simple (at least for me) is not visible. IWI (chat) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even in the expand section. IWI (chat) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno what to say I see it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WMF always neglects this project IMO. IWI (chat) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might be best to clarify some things. DJSasso, would I be correct in assuming you don't have the compact language list? IWI, until the devs or whoever sends the patch through Gerrit gives some sort of update, it might be best to disable the compact language list (somewhere in preferences and it's configurable in the global preferences). Hiàn (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea to be honest. Doubt I would have gone and turned anything off. I rarely touch any of the preferences. I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that I think about it I did go turn it off because of the bug that Vermont pointed too. I have it off there and on here. I rarely use them anyway cause of User:Djsasso/enWPTab.js here and en:User:Djsasso/SimpleWPTab.js there. Only use them when our titles don't match. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Maybe you could take a screenshot of what you're seeing. There are two issues that could be affecting this.

  • First, are the enwiki and simple articles both linked in Wikidata? If they are, then the issue is with some setting, not with the linking. If either article links to the other via hardcoded interwiki links (there aren't supposed to be any more of those in articles, but there might be), that could affect what you see.
  • Second, are you using the compact language list option (on the appearance tab in your settings)? If so, it might be suppressing which languages you see on the left side of the screen.

If none of that explains it, a screenshot might help us figure it out. Also, if you don't know how to link two pages in Wikidata, see User:Auntof6/How to#Interwiki language links for new pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's probably using Compact Language Links, which doesn't include Simple at all, not even when searching directly for it. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I am, I just checked it. That needs to change though, we might as well be invisible. IWI (chat) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The former lead sentence of the geography article was too complex. I’ve tried to reword it but I’m not quite sure how to word this perfectly. IWI (chat) 00:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't move page

I wanted to move two pages to reflect the current titles on en.Wikipedia. The first article is Civil rights movement to Civil rights movements. The second is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) to Civil rights movement. I don't have the "'Move Page" tab displayed as Help:Moving a page describes. Mitchumch (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is because you are not autoconfirmed yet. Basically you haven't edited long enough here. But be aware we don't necessarily match article titles with, however, that isn't a comment on whether this move should or should not be done. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How should I proceed to move the page? Mitchumch (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By waiting until you are autoconfirmed. However, since it was pointed out that articles here don't necessarily have the same title as those on enwiki, can you explain why you want to rename these? If you don't have another reason, then it's probably best to leave them with the names they have. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The names are identical to the ones that were on en.Wikipedia when those articles were created on Simple Wikipedia. The reasons why the en.Wikipedia articles had their titles changed are equally valid on Simple Wikipedia. From my observations, the content on both articles on Simple Wikipedia seem to mirror en.Wikipedia. What is the argument for not changing them? Mitchumch (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there is an argument to be made that being more specific on simple.wikipedia is simpler and that the only disambiguator between the two being an "s" is not simple. Remember this wiki has a mandate to be simple where does not. But I have no strong opinions either way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where are the guidelines that simple.wikipedia follows for "common name" and "reliable sources"? Mitchumch (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Djsasso or Auntof6 Is anyone available to answer my question? Mitchumch (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For common name, en:WP:COMMONNAME might be what you're looking for. (That is a policy on English Wikipedia, but we refer to their policies and guidelines when we don't have our own.) For reliable sources, see WP:RS.
That being said, we also need to keep a global point of view. The term "Civil rights movement" doesn't specifically point to either the United States or African-American issues. I asked why you wanted to rename these, and your response was to match the enwiki names because their reasons for renaming are valid here. However, you haven't said what those reasons were.--Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should this "page move" conversation be held here or on one of the two talk pages for the articles in question? Mitchumch (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still waiting for an answer. Mitchumch (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Auntof6 is waiting for her answer as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a problem answering questions, but on en.Wikipedia this discussion would be on the article page, not a general help page. Since simple.wikipedia has relatively no traffic, then I don't know if you guys normally discuss everything here or on the article talk page. Please don't be snarky with me. Mitchumch (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2019)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

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

  • Kinige – Primarily Indian-language ebooks - 10 books per month
  • Gale – Times Digital Archive collection added (covering 1785-2013)
  • JSTOR – New applications now being taken again

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Taylor & Francis, Cairn, Annual Reviews and Bloomsbury. You can request new partnerships on our Suggestions page.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 17:40, 13 March 2019 (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.

Creating Wikipedia account first time ever

Hi I tried to create an account with Wikipedia for the first time ever it said 4 people created accounts with my IP address in last 24 hours this is serious. I have screen shot of reply from Wikipedia I may not have correct place here for this issue. There may be explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56a:76e9:8e00:c8e:6e11:5b78:5333 (talkcontribs)

Post on my talk page and I can help you. —Justin (koavf)TCM08:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sears Tower / Willis Tower

In the Willis Tower article, there is a huge, glaring error message under the lovely photograph of the tower. Can someone savvy in Wikipedia's technical stuff please fix this? Please! Kdammers (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can an importer please import the newest versions of these modules from en.wp? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM08:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I will take care of it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed clarifications of the GA/VGA criteria: List-type articles...

Hello all, I know that the GA/VGA process is not used very much any more. I would nevertheless propose that we clarify whether "list-type articles" can be awarded the status of Good/Very Good Article. I would propose that we say that these articles cannot be given the status for the following reason:

  • A list of entries perhaps with a blurb lacks the depth of a normal article. The list can be complete, and it can be stable. The format does not allow to add much depth.
  • Verifying that a listing is complete and stable can be difficult.

Even though the English-Wikipedia has the equivalent of (very good) articles (as lists), I don't see much point in supporting such lists here (Lists themselves, are fine, but just not as Good/Very good lists). If the process was more active, and we had at last 3 candidates we could promote I could see a new category; as things stand now, I don't think we should support (very) good lists. What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Let us try to get 3 very good lists candidates first and this will be more relevant. I don't think there should be good lists as no other projects had it and very good lists are easier than very good articles. Once we have 3, it will be easier to argue as the category can be populated. The lists can be static, e.g. list of Confederate army commanders / List of World War 2 General and Flag officers etc. Depth can be obtained by how each list is described, each item is portrayed. As if completeness, it must be supported by sources to claim the list is completed. As of criteria, most of the items in the list must have articles on their own, so a creator need to create at least stubs of the rest. One good challenge will be en:List of U.S. National Forests and this properly translated will be a very good very good list.--Cohaf (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Re populating categories for good/very good lists: such categories would be exceptions and would not have to have three entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Three is only a rule of thumb and there are plenty of times where common sense dictates we don't need three. This would be one. The rule of thumb of 3 came when people would come here and add a page and all its categories and them work their way up the category tree creating categories where the only item in it was the category below it. We didn't want people creating category trees just to hold a single sub category below it etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think list articles should qualify for GA/VGA. We have low participation in the process as it is, and I'd rather see effort put more into regular articles. Besides that, the main focus here is use of simple language. List articles often have barely any prose at all (which I think is proper), so they aren't as valuable to the project as regular articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well technically the ones that would quality for that status would have a bunch of prose as they do on I don't think there is any reason for us to not allow for them if we ever get any. The fact we allow them and don't have any at the moment doesn't hurt anything. But they opportunity to have them in the future would benefit us. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why should we classify lists in such a way when they are essentially copies of the En version? And I'm not impressed with our GA and VGA proposals either. The very idea of editors proposing articles they largely copied is kind of revolting. I don't object to a proposal where the editor has actually done significant writing! I notice most of our experienced editors do not put "their" articles up for consideration, and neither do I. That might worry us more. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interface Changes

It appears as though a portion of the interface has changed to less-simple terms, such as "changes" replaced by "edits" in many places, and "Show any article" being replaced by "Random article". I'm currently contacting people to try and fix the issue. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to be fixed. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I was hunting for the reason the other day. None of the MediaWiki pages were touched so there must have been a bug somewhere that was fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flood flag and blocking

So something that came up recently was that an admin blocked a number of accounts as spambots/proxies while under the flood flag. I had mentioned to them that they shouldn't do that and they pointed out that the current wording of Wikipedia:Flood flag does allow for it. The policy having been originally copied over from meta which may have had different guidelines from us. I swear our policy had been that admin actions could not be taken while under the flood flag but I can't find the exact discussion it was under and since that page has sat there since 2009 figured we might as well hold a fresh consensus on the topic.

So I propose the following:

Examples of acceptable use would be deleting many spambot pages, or deleting a large number of pages after consensus has been achieved at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion, or blocking many open proxies.

be changed to:

Examples of acceptable use would be deleting a large number of pages after consensus has been achieved at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion.

Admin actions should be under the view of all editors so they get the scrutiny they may or may not neet. The temporary flood of the NC log is a small price to pay for everything being transparent. And even then we very rarely have enough admin actions that they would "flood" the NC. I am even ok with removing the entire sentence but this proposal is probably good as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose As the aforementioned admin, I support using the flood flag for noncontroversial mass blocks of IP addresses and spambot accounts. This prevents tedious and fairly routine disposal of malicious activity that has already activated the global spam filter from flooding NC. Since I use a script to assist me with blocking spam sources, I can quickly generate many edits per minute. This causes my admin actions to flood out NC and prevent community members from seeing vandalism or other unhelpful edits. Since a sysop adding the flood flag to themselves is recorded in NC, other sysops can review the blocks (as DJSasso has done), if desired. I'd suggest the Flood Flag policy explicitly state if used for blocking, the sysop is responsible for clearly stating their planned actions in the rights change reason and the content of their admin actions. However, I also recognize the merits of DJSasso's argument for transparency. Either way, I defer to the community's opinion, should one be established. Operator873talkconnect 17:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The problem of course is not the routine stuff, but the non-routine stuff that can be hidden in with the good. It is really easy to miss a single line edit where a given admin added the flood flag as opposed to the fact that say 20 blocks show up in the NC log. Of course when admins are behaving then it makes sense, it is those times when someone might not that the problem comes up. Hiding them essentially means that now all those blocks will have to go be gone through by someone else when they are hidden whereas when they are out in the open there is less need to do that. So essentially in order to hide what are relatively few lines from the NC, you add work to make people have to go out and search out the blocks to make sure they are good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do understand your reasoning and I do see merit in it. My dissenting opinion, however, is my counter-proposal. Operator873talkconnect 17:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took some time to consider other situations wherein my proposal would lead directly to misuse or abuse. I have struck my oppose vote and now Support DJSasso's proposal as this would be the least likely to lend itself to potential abuse by rogue admin. DJSasso's proposal would ensure the safety of the community and further protect the community's trust in its administrative cadre. Operator873talkconnect 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support this change. Unless there is discussed community consensus for mass administrator actions, they should not be hidden from NC with the flood flag. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with the principle that admin actions should be easy to scrutinize for other editors, and this demands a certain transparency. I don't think flooding of New Changes is a huge issue, however. I'm not particularly worried either way, but like Djsasso, I have a feeling this was agreed in the past and possibly never put into writing. Ultimately, I think admins should have nothing to hide, and do not think it is too much to ask from the concerned parties, hence I agree with the new proposal. --Yottie =talk= 17:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Make sense but if there are thousands of spambots to be blocked, an exception can be made. Not here but over a meta, I seen an occasion where close to a thousand spambots being blocked and even flood or bot didn't work. I'm trying so hard to stare at RC to make sure vandals doesn't have the chance to exploit it. For here that seems unlikely so less of a concerns. I had noticed the flooding yesterday so went over to add in bot edits in NC. So at least to be fair it wasn't hidden blocking, 2 other members knew about it.--Cohaf (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah this wouldn't prevent special circumstances. Could always announce such a situation on the Simple Talk and get the ok to do it or atleast to announce intention if they had to be blocked immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We neeed pages on...

ballot tampering, multiple voting, harassment of opposition candidates or harassment of candidates, press censorship ...

These really are important issues for our readership. And we may need other related phrases about elections. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do have a page on electoral fraud, which can be extended. I would suggest redirecting there for relevant articles. Harrassment of candidates, and influencing media coverage probably need articles on their own. --Eptalon (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will create redirects. Press censorship will redirect to censorship, others to electoral fraud. Most of these topics are consolidated in electoral fraud on enwiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@StevenJ81: I deleted the two redirects related to harassment, because harassment isn't fraud. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

se articles not found in en language links

I know we wrote about this before, and I thought the problem was solved, but it isn't: When there is a long list of wikipedia language links on the English Wik, simple English is not listed (at least for me on a laptop using Mozilla). For example, Europe does not link to se Wik. Kdammers (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really something we can solve. It’s on a high priorty list for the WMF at the moment. IWI (chat) 15:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is solved by going to Preferences -> Appearance and go to the bottom of the page and turn off using compact language links. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't work for me. Kdammers (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did it on (You have to do it each wiki you use. So to see the simple link on se you have to do it on I just did it myself and it worked. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I did it on For amphibian, I get the full list, including se; but for Europe, se did not come up -- only the short list and the second-step regional list of languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talkcontribs)


I will be embarking on a wikibreak for at least a week. During this time, I will be vacationing in Las Vegas and getting married. I will not be able to respond to admin requests so I ask the other sysops monitor my talk page for any activity. Thanks! Operator873talkconnect 18:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammar issue: starting sentences with numbers

I've seen this issue a few times lately, so I thought I'd mention it here for anyone who might not know. When you start a sentence with a number, you must spell the number out instead of using numerals. Another option is to rewrite the sentence so that the number isn't at the beginning. Here's an example using a population number:

Incorrect: 4,727 people live there.
Correct (if ungainly): Four thousand seven hundred twenty-seven people live there.
Correct: The population is 4,727.
Correct: As of the 2010 census, 4,727 people lived there.

You might be able to come up with others, depending on what information you have. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed this page was moved normally, but then cut-and-pasted back to the original title a few weeks ago. Personally I'd favor the old title without the disambiguator (Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon) without specific advice in our own Manual of Style, but I feel this should be discussed before an administrator implements a consensus (since things have been disputed back and forth a bit). Thanks! — Alpha3031 (tc) 03:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where we can be simpler, we should be. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The back and forth is due to a long term abuse account. It has been fixed back to where it should be. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one is beyond me, but {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} needs fixed. It pulls data from wikidata to populate fields, however when a field has multiple values (IE images on Way of St. James) it breaks. Can someone please take a look? Nunabas (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking a look. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like the page itself just had an old way of calling the template. But I also updated the template to make sure all the code was current. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read-only mode for up to 30 minutes on 11 April

10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


There should be a redirect for 'Goettingen' to Göttingen. Also, the site has this error message: Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 488: Unable to find the specified location map definition: "Module:Location map/data/Germany Niedersachsen" does not exist. - Maybe someone can fix it. Kdammers (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah looks like the location map module just hasn't be created for that page yet. Easy to do. -DJSasso (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB assist needed

{{class project}} is being used on about two dozen articles. None of the articles have been edited as part of the projects since 2018. Could someone with AWB go through and remove them from the articles? The template implies that they're currently being edited as part of the projects, but they're stale now. They could also be moved to the talk pages if deemed appropriate. With the amount of edits needed, AWB would be helpful. Thanks, Only (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can do it. Just give me a few minutes to get my laptop booted up. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Only: Done. I ended up deleting a few of them, because they said only something like "Jane Doe was an activist.". --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for the help! Only (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


To the left of entries and to the right of the circles, there is a square before each entry in the revision lists. What is it for? Kdammers (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're used to let you select individual revisions to take certain actions. One such action is revision deletion. Some, maybe all, of those actions are restricted to admins. I see a couple of clickable boxes related to such actions, but you might not see them if you aren't authorized to perform the actions. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English on Wikipedia sidebar

Simple English used to be an option for articles on Wikipedia if the article had a Simple English version. Now the Languages selection in the sidebar never shows the Simple English article as an option, even if it does exist. As a result, for months (including when the feature was in beta), I thought that an overwhelming amount of articles simply had no Simple English version.

How can I figure out whether an article has a Simple English Wikipedia version from English Wikipedia? Erik Humphrey (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you can see red/blue links from en.wp to simple.wp but this script at leads adds a tab at en.wp to easily click to simple.wp. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM05:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: I don't think Erik Humphrey was talking about red vs. blue links.
Erik: Can you give an example of a page on enwiki where you can't see Simple English in the language list even though there is an article here? There are at least a couple of things that affect which languages appear in the list:
  • Is the Simple English Wikipedia article linked to the enwiki article in Wikidata? To appear, it must be linked there.
  • Are you using the Compact Language Links feature on enwiki? If you are, you might need to tell it to include Simple English in your initial list. To check whether you are using this feature, go to your preferences on enwiki, select the appearances tab, go to the bottom of that page under the Languages heading, and see if the checkbox for compact language list is selected.
Let me know if any if that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're using Compact Language Links, you're unable to find Simple English articles. See phabricator:T210840. Vermont (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vermont: Could you fix that link, please? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would point out you need to do that on English Wikipedia, turning it off here won't help. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why I said "go to your preferences on enwiki". --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes and which I why I was reiterating it and making it clear by separating it out of your big comment and indicating it won't work if you do it here which you hadn't mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: Thanks. I thought they removed the ability to disable the feature and forced it on for everyone. Don't think there's a reliable way of adding Simple English to the ULS/CLL without scripts right now. Erik Humphrey (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reliable way right now is to turn off CLL until they fix the bug. When you do it will revert back to the old way of listing the links which works better. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with footers

While looking at Miocene, I noticed that its footer "Geological history of Earth" sat open, even though looking at its edit page it seems instructed to be closed, as it is on En wiki. Why is ours not closed, and can someone fix it to be closed? Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Semiprotect WP:SEW

I am going to propose (again) that Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia be permanently semi-protected. I make this proposal fully cognizant of our policies and practices here that (a) we are highly reluctant to protect pages, and (b) that it's hard to argue that the administrators can't keep up with the problems. Still, consider the following statistics, dating back to January 1, 2017:

  • There have been somewhere around 170 edits to that page in that period.
  • Six (6) have been constructive edits resulting in changes to the page, of which one (1) was from an IP contributor.
  • The rest have all been vandalism, or reversal of vandalism.

In my mind, there are certain pages in the "Wikipedia:" (and "Help:") namespaces that we as a community should have an interest in keeping ready and accessible, because they describe who we are and how we do them. I don't like the idea that people would come to consult them and see something ridiculous (or worse) on them. WP:SEW is one such page. Yes, the sysops can keep up—but if a potential new user appears while the vandalism is in place, we look bad. And I don't want us to look bad.

Additionally, I find it hard to see how an IP user is likely to have something worthwhile to contribute on a page like that. The vast majority of IP users are either (a) vandals or (b) new or casual contributors who are decidedly not vandals, but who really have not been around long enough to have real contributions to make to the description of the project. Yes, there are a handful of people who are IP-users-by-principle. And there are sometimes worthwhile contributions to come from new users. That's why {{Changeprotected}} exists. On the whole, though, the page seems to be a magnet for vandals, especially IP vandals, and for no good cause, in my opinion.

I only propose semi-protection. Anyone who is really committed to the community is entitled to edit a page like this. But I think it's time to take this vandal magnet away from the vandals. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our openness to being the wiki that anyone can edit is more important than the very unlikely chance a reader hits that page at the very same time there is vandalism on it. And even if they manage to do it, its a small price to pay for sticking to the stated goals of the wiki. A very small number of vandal edits per month is very much the definition of protection not needed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seen the history, yes, there are vandalism. However, the frequency isn't regular and we do have productive IP editors who created many articles here. They, IMO, can be trusted to edit such pages and I personally do not want to limit their ability to edit such pages. Having said that, I won't be against protection if a mass spree of vandalism and reverting take place. With this, currently I do not see any need to protect. --Cohaf (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand everyone's point. But is this actually "the wiki that anyone can edit" or "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Remember that project pages are not exactly part of the encyclopedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every page, template, article etc. is part of the encyclopedia. Namespace is irrelevant, they are all part of the encyclopedia in one way or another. -DJSasso (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astronomy note

Probably, whenever we say an object is in a constellation, we should spell it out by inserting "in the direction of", rather than just "in the constellation of..." That's just to accept there will be some who don't know, or forget, that the constellations are visual fictions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose that would probably depend on if it was a star or part of a system that makes up the constellation itself. If that is the case saying "in the direction of" would be misleading if not incorrect. If it just near a constellation then yes what you say would make sense. Probably very dependant on context. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, constellations are still useful for amateurs in identifying where to look in the sky. The classic stars (etc) that make them up are the constellation. However, in modern professional astronomy their usefulness is long over. Objects seen in the Hubble Deep Field initiative are so distant in time and space that, although they may be in the direction of this or that constellation, that is simply an accidental coincidence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To astronomers, a constellation isn't just the stars that make up an image, it's the whole section of the sky that those stars are in. The entire sky is divided into sections, each associated with the constellation that's in it. So to say that an object is in a constellation can mean that the object is in the area of the sky assigned to that constellation. If you look at the image currently in our Constellation article, you see a yellow dashed line that marks the border of the constellation Pegasus. Anything that appears from Earth to be inside that line can be said to be in that constellation. So it's OK to say that something is in a constellation, knowing that that just means that that's the part of the sky where you can see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah that is what I was thinking as well but wasn't 100% sure that was the case or if that was just a layman's way of looking at it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stale DYK

It appears that the "Did you know" section on the home page has not been updated for four months. That's quite a long time. Should it be updated? I read over the instructions on how to do so and am willing to help. But I am not sure I have the correct rights or experience to do so. Desertborn (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we need new DYK hooks before we can actually update the page. So that falls on editors to create some from newly edited/created articles. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few months ago I had planned to look through old hooks as well as making a few new ones to get a 7-day rotation going. I could try and restart that. We discussed it somewhere, but I forgot where. Vermont (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like we already have three more queue pages of hooks that have not yet been used. (Queue 4 is marked as next. Queue 5 and 6 are already prepared with hooks as well). Of course we still need to suggest more. But couldn't we rotate to one of those already prepared queues? Or am I overlooking something? Desertborn (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like we had someone create a bunch of queues without the hooks ever being approved. Might have to go through the archives and make sure they were approved. But if they were it is easy enough to update. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tool for fixing bare URLs?

In the en Wiki there is an great tool called reFill that can add cite tags and details to bare URLs. Is there anything similar I can use here? I've found a few and then created the cite tag by hand. But if there is an automated way I would love to know. Desertborn (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same tool works here. Just choose simple from the dropdown. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah! I never even saw that before. Thanks for the help. Desertborn (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could some admin replace all instances of "Save Page" with "Publish Changes" at MediaWiki:Edittools ?FR30799386 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could some admin replace all instances of "Save Page" with "Publish Changes" at MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning ? — FR 12:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Vermont (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vermont: Could you do the same for MediaWiki:Newarticletext?  — FR 14:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question about wrongly RFD'ing a page

I recently nominated Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading) for requests for deletion, but I later realized it actually meets the criteria for quick deletion. Should I remove the RFD, or just ask an admin to close it? Computer Fizz (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everybody makes mistakes sometimes. An admin can close it early if it is obvious the decision will be to keep it.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No what I'm saying is that it falls under QD T1, which means the page can be deleted without any RFD involved. So i'm asking how to handle this. Computer Fizz (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, I should read more closely. I'll defer to an admin on that, but my guess is probably you can QD it.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is most certainly not QD T1. It is used by the bots as part of the cleaning of the sandbox. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have declined the QD because there is at least one link to the template. Let's let the RFD run. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: Woah you're right, they are. Fortunately only 8 of them are transclusions so if the RFD passes it'll be simple enough to fix. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

css question

Does anyone know what the CSS equivalent of importScript() is for Special:MyPage/common.css userpages, as in to load another page's CSS into common? Google and help pages have been fruitless. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computer Fizz, It's importStylesheet() (you need to use it in your common.js though) :) — FR 05:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Computer Fizz (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the practise regarding adding warnings to Users when nominating their articles for QDs?

Hi all! I was just wondering about the above question. I was once told that I needed to remember to add warnings to User Talk pages when I nominated their articles for QD (as in a warning for creating inapporpriate pages, rather than simply a notification of QD). However I've seen lots of cases where this hasn't happened recently and was just wondering what the official policy is? Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 12:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SpaceGuy32: I don't find anything specifically about QDs, but Wikipedia:Requests for deletion says this about RFDs:
Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.
This could apply to QDs, too. Note that it isn't an official policy or guideline, but I think it's good to notify in most cases. Also note that a warning for creating bad pages is not the same as a QD notice. Not all cases of QD need an inappropriate page warning. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks for clarifying: I presume that a bad page warning should only be used in conjunction with a QD notice when the page is obviously intended to be "bad"? Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't put it in quotes, but yes, only when there was no intent to create a good page. Note, though, that sometimes pages are nominated for QD but the reviewing admin declines the QD. In those cases, you might not want to have left a warning; sometimes I leave a warning after I delete a page. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok perfect! Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 13:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School project making non-simple edits

It seems that most edits made in the last 30 minutes or so are part of a school project. I've noticed though that most if not all the edits are written in complex (not Simple) English. I don't know how we would deal with this but I feel something needs to be done before it becomes a larger problem. J991 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally that is part of us allowing schools to have projects here. Usually one of us ends up going through and fixing things up where necessary when they are done. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J991: I hadn't heard that we had a current school project. If no one let us know that this one was coming, I'd say we could treat the edits like any others: warn the editors when language is too complex, qd articles that warrant it, etc., and on the other hand, welcoming users who seem to want to contribute, and directing them to the pages that explain how to write here. What is the indication that this is a school project? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We all know this wiki needs more regular editors. School projects are one way to show people, there's another Engilsh language Wikipedia. It takes time to get a grip on writing in "Simple English". So I think treating the editors of a school porject like any other editor is probably a good way forward. We point out that the language in an article or section may be a little complex, and we welcome those editors who do the right thing. Deleting an article is easy, writing a new article for our audience takes time, and is not as easy as it may first appear...--Eptalon (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree --Examknow (lets chat!) 19:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the notability rules should be changed

The notability rules should be changed on Simple English. Movies which are even nominated for an award (example: Golden Globe Awards, Academy Awards or Emmy Award) should be notable and said to claim notability. Why are movies that win an award said to claim notability, and movies that are nominated for an award not said to claim notability? That is insulting and embarrassing. For example, recently in August 2018, one article, Heal the Living, was nominated for an award, yet still got deleted. I was highly offended by that. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rules for this should be the same as on enwiki. One reason that being nominated doesn't make something notable is that some prizes always nominate a minimum number of entries. If there aren't enough truly worthy things to nominate, they nominate lesser things just to make up the number. Besides that, the notability guideline for movies doesn't require any nominations at all; it lists several other ways that notability can be shown.
Finally, if you disagree with a deletion, you can request a review of it at WP:Deletion review. Just be aware that reviews are conducted on the merits: Saying that you were embarrassed or offended by a deletion will not affect the review. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saying it was nominated would be a claim to notability. It just doesn't assure notability. In other words it would stop a quick deletion, it might not stop a full Rfd. I restored Heal the Living as it did have a claim. People keep forgetting that a claim can be the most minor thing. That QD criteria doesn't require the claim to actually be notable. And being nominated for an award most definitely would qualify to make people think that something might be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any chance we can get the en version copied over? Getting {{Broken ref}} to filter out non-articles would be useful. Nunabas (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: thanks, one more message to copy over(MediaWiki:Cite-tracking-category-cite-error). Hopefully this will be the last one for awhile. Nunabas (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thought I had got them all, done now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Increase period before articles here are archived

I was just wondering if it would not make sense to increase the time that topics here are open for dicussion. After all, many participants are only part-time contributors to Simple and may miss-out on important discussions. Right now topics here are retired after only fourteen days. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We leave it at that so that the page doesn't get clogged up too fast, which it did when he had it set at more than 14. Discussions for official sake only last seven days. If you haven't noticed a discussion in fourteen days there isn't much we can do for you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just wondering, what happened to ChenzwBot? I have seen multiple edits that contain content that should have been reverted. --Examknow (lets chat!) 22:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He comes and goes. I have messaged @Chenzw: so hopefully he will be back again soon. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s good. We really need it around here. --Examknowtalk 21:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A4 clarification

It seems as though there's a bit of a disagreement over what constitutes an article that can be deleted via A4. I think it would be best to discuss it here. The current description at WP:QD is:

"Is about people, groups, companies, products, services or websites that do not claim to be notable. This includes any article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, product, service or web content that does not say why the subject is important. If the article says why the subject is important, the article is not eligible for A4 deletion. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead."

The disagreement seems to be over what constitutes a claim. How should we define it? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this essay on en wiki may be helpful to us in this. In fact, this goes to the heart of the matter: "One, search for a statement within the article that attributes noteworthiness to the subject; for example: 'John Doe is the State President of the Democratic Party in Tasmania'...Such a claim of noteworthiness need not be supported by any reference; the fact that such a claim exists, deems that the A7, A9 and A11 tags cannot be applied." Of course A7 on enwiki is nearly equal to A4 here. So I think the definition of a claim should be the same here. Notice how the existence of a claim does not even require a source. Thus it is a much lower barrier than notability even. Desertborn (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add to my comment above, that essay has a lot of good information on this subject. I highly recommend it. Based on it, I think the following are good examples of what a "claim" is.
  • "Ronald Wilson Reagan was an American actor and politician" (from Ronald Reagan)
  • "Dan Kelly was an Australian bushranger and outlaw" (from Dan Kelly)
  • "Aniuyguyna Sergeevna Kournikova is a Russian model and retired professional tennis player" (from Anna Kournikova)
  • "Jessica Alba is an American television and film actress and model" (from Jessica Alba)
I took all of those from very good articles. They all show a simple formula for a claim. The name of the person followed by a statement of something that makes them notable. Of course, I don't think we can make a rule that a claim must follow a specific format. There are many other ways to phrase such a claim, in more or less words. Desertborn (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of the things in that bulleted list is a claim of notability. They're just statements of the person's profession, and a profession alone is not a claim of notability. For example, everyone who participates in a school play is an actor. Everyone who runs for office is a politician, no matter what level office it is or how successful they are. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see those as claims of notability. Yes, someone in a school play could call themselves an actor, but their notability past that point is for RfD to decide, not individual admins. Vermont (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not claims of notability. The notability of the people from whose articles those quotes were taken is shown later in the articles. Wikipedia:Notability (people) has these things to say about what constitutes notability:
  • Sports people may be notable if they have (1) participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics; (2) won a national event of competition; (3) played for a national team; (4) played for a team in a national level competition.
  • Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: (1) Has had important roles in several notable movies, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
  • Politicians: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the main guidelines of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
There are similar specifications for other professions. If being in a profession were enough to make someone notable, these other specifications wouldn't be needed.
It can be tricky when you are talking about someone undeniably notable. Take the statement "Ronald Wilson Reagan was an American actor and politician." We want to say that that shows notability, but it doesn't. Reagan is notable, but that statement doesn't show the notability. The notability is shown later in the article where it talks about his work as an actor and the political offices he held. Suppose I change it to "Joe Smith was an American actor and politician"--to me, that makes it clearer that we need more than just a statement of being an actor and politician. If "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have shown individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article" (from Wikipedia:Notability (music)), that shows that just being in a profession isn't enough to show notability. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isnt a question of what constitutes notability; it's what constitutes a claim. Of course that one sentence doesn't prove notability, but it claims it. A4 isnt there for individual admins to decide if articles meet notability policy. If someone writes an article about a subject in a small-time production that has a town council seat and refers to them as a "actor and politician" that should go to RfD, in my opinion. Vermont (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'No' to that last sentence, because that would make much of the world notable. It is not being an actor that makes an actor notable. It is being an actor whose notability meets the criteria. The process is two-stage:
  1. First to say in some direct form "John Smith is a notable politician". For the word "notable", obvious synonyms are acceptable. So stated, his page should not be deleted under QD. Also acceptable are mentions of significant awards such as winning Nobel Prize, playing for international teams in sport and so on. However, the absence of a clearly meaningful claim does make the page liable for QD.
  2. Second, to give evidence of that claim. Failure here makes the page liable for RfD.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in mind, though, that we aren't supposed to call people famous, notable, noted, etc. Their notability is supposed to be shown by what is written about them. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not saying that my example is notable. I said it has a claim. They are two entirely separate things. Meeting of notability criteria is not for individual administrators to decide, it's for community consensus through RfD's. Vermont (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we are talking about claims of notability, not demonstration of it. Stating someone's occupation doesn't claim notability. If it did, we wouldn't need all the guidelines about whether people in certain occupations are notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do have a good exapmle: look at Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord. It is a sohort article, only a few sentences long. There are external references (we get an "other websites section, and links to towo other pages, where we can discuss whether these are related). The question is just: does the article assert enough to not be dletable under A4? - All it has are some claims and illustrationsa without reference. For those who don't know it: Talleyrand was one of the most important/influential diplomats of the 19th century, so the question is not whether he is notable. The question is: does the article in its current form show this, as to not fall under A4? --Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that one claims notability because of the things he did, not just because the first sentence says he was a diplomat. Our guideline on diplomats says, "Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required," and I think that is met here, (although it could use some inline references, and sentence that starts "He is widely seen" is a bit weasely). --Auntof6 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it does Eptalon. As long as it makes a claim a quick deletion can not be used and it must go to Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In some professions, the profession itself is the claim. A4 is meant for things like "Joey is a cool guy." Almost every article created if it says something about the person such as "Joey is an actor." is a claim. Basically the TLDR of A4 is that if it says anything that even remotely no matter how far fetched could make someone think the person was notable then a claim was made. (excluding situations of hoax where no sane person would think it were true) The decision on whether or not the topic is actually notable is for Rfd to decide not individual admins. A4 gets used way too often here. I often have to go through the logs undeleting articles that should not have been A4'd. This isn't the first time this has come up either a number of admins have pointed this out on many occasions. To use the example above "Ronald Wilson Reagan was an American actor and politician." is a claim, they are claiming the person is notable because they are an actor and a politician. It doesn't show they are notable, but it does make the claim they are notable. We don't have to show notability to avoid quick deletion, we only have to claim it. The things in Wikipedia:Notability (people) for example are about showing notability not about claiming it, for example if I said "Joey is the fastest kid in New York." that would be a claim, but it you won't find fastest kid in New York in WP:N. But that doesn't matter because you can't delete when a claim is made. It has to go to Rfd to decide if the article is actually notable and if being the fastest kid in New York does make him notable. Or in the case of an actor, we need to go to Rfd to evaluate the article against WP:ACTOR to see if indeed they meet the requirements. If you are comparing them against WP:N in order to make an A4 call then you are bypassing the communities power and doing it yourself which is a big no. We as admins only get to decide on things that are extremely black and white. Anytime you are about to use judgement when deciding on a QD then you immediately should know its not a valid QD and it needs to go to Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something else to remember is WP:BEFORE. You are supposed to make a good faith look for sources before you put something up for deletion, this applies just as much to an admin checking a QD as it does to any other editor creating an Rfd. If the article here is lacking something showing notability but you know on there is a big well referenced article. They you aren't doing your job properly if you delete it because more likely than not the topic is notable. And deleting notable articles just for the sake of some mistaken belief we have to delete something if it doesn't meet A4 is never ok. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: This is completely unacceptable and against basic A4 policy. Vermont (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually only came here after seeing that this had been deleted again, either by negligence or wheel warring and it's very disappointing. A two second google search would have shown anyone who looked that this is a completely notable subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only that, but once it was restored it had to go to Rfd (where it 100% would have been kept). This is ridiculous. It isn't like people haven't told you two that you are deleting incorrectly before. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: I had a quick look and was surprised to find two other articles that I had attempted to correct vandalism on by restoring the actual correct content for unquestionably notable subjects, had also been deleted. Would you please restore Saliva (band) and CKY? Praxidicae (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done and did a tiny bit of cleanup by adding categories etc. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'm not a huge fan of this genre (aside from Saliva) but at least there's now an indisuputable claim. :) Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do these articles have any policy or other issues that would prevent them from restoration? Dolores Prida, Bette Bao Lord, Antonia Hernández, Sandra Cisneros - I included enwiki links to establish that they are generally considered notable and probably will require an RFD. apparently those links don't work, but point still remains. Praxidicae (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first three only really said X is an activist. While in some situations like a professional athlete I would be ok with. I am a little more hesitant about restoring in that state as I wouldn't think most activists are notable, rather the notable ones are the exception. That being said there is definitely notability based on the articles so its very unlikely I personally would have deleted them. I would have just brought some information over from to prevent the loss of articles on notable people. That being said if you are objecting to them being deleted I can restore them and whomever if they want to can take them to Rfd. But I would prefer that they be expanded if I restore them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have time to fully expand them but I'll make sure they have at least a relevant claim and source. Do any of them contain anything worthwhile? Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I restored them. Feel free to take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I obviously don't have the same understanding as the people being vocal here. I'll just stop doing A4 deletions altogether. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not saying you shouldn't delete any or follow what I am about to say. But way back when I was first made admin on The recommendation to us new admins was that for any of the notability QD options we should just tag them so that a second admin always looked at those deletions. That being said that only applies to ones you come across on your own, not ones other editors tagged. The idea was that no matter what two people always looked at an article before it was A4'd. Don't know if they still recommend that on but I do find it good advice. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, as many of you expect, I believe claims should be expressed in language, not inferentially. For applying this as the basis of A4 I have been much criticised. Of course, I have made some mistakes, but not so many as some think. Unlike En, admins here range across all topics, and cannot possibly know who is notable and who is not. Why is it so difficult for new pages to say in words what makes a person or topic notable? (Perhaps because so many are not notable). And bear in mind that our RfD system does not work well when we get in the region of 20 pages listed. We've been there before, and we know how true that is. Keep in mind the huge number of new pages we get which are one or two sentences long, with no claim or justification. Do you really want all those to land up in RfD? Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If it results in less notable things getting deleted that shouldn't yes. Remember our Rfd, if no one comments in the discussion then it results in a soft delete, so if no one comments that isn't a problem. So the number that might end up there is a very minor issue compared with things getting deleted that shouldn't. You are right we can't know everyone who is notable, which is why it has to go to Rfd. That is the whole point. We aren't evaluating if they are notable with the A4, we are evaluating if the person writing the article put something on the page that could make someone think the person was notable. Determining notability is for Rfd not QD. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The possibility of a community backlog is not an acceptable justification to expand administrator discretion to deciding and enforcing the notability of a subject. Vermont (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see some improvements that can be made to our A4 processes. The meaning of having a credible claim of notablity can be interpreted as there is something that may make it seems notable (or for me I once thought that the claim itself must be weighty). A4 is one way to get rid of rubbish articles by LTAs and etc which is useful. A RFD may be too heavyweight and makes us focus in typing up the rationale and sending. I have no qualms doing so but sometimes these articles is best dealt with by an A4. This is per DENY / and at times a G3 may not be best. However, the differing standards of A4 between admins is a problem (there shouldn't as admins are set to enforce the guidelines not to be one who set the guidelines via deletion). This cannot be prevented as no one think alike. One way I can think of, and had been suggested is to tag the A4 and not delete it and let another admin delete it. Given our current pool of admins, I think it can be done. However, given future is uncertain, we can also have the allowance of tagging an article as A4 then for a period of time (i.e. 1 day) no one do anything, the tagging admin can delete it. I don't wish to see speedy deletion to be there 3 - 4 days too (as in some of my other projects it can be). Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]