Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 126

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism / possible socking

I dont really have time at the moment to straight this out but I think (talk · contribs) and MoltenLead (talk · contribs) may be the same person. It appears that there is some tag team vandalism going on. Nunabas (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nunabas: Please make an investigation at WP:SPI. Thank you. Examknowtalk 19:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing a page


I want to update a page with pictures. How do I add pictures from the company that i found on their website or newspaper, in a legal way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules Muylaert (talkcontribs) 09:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jules Muylaert: On this Wikipedia, pictures can be used only if they are on Wikimedia Commons. We don't host local images. To upload things at Commons, you have to be the copyright holder or have and provide documented permission from the copyright holder, and you upload them under a license that allows anyone to use them however they want. If you found pictures on a company's website or in a newspaper, you probably can't upload them.
I think we have some folks here who can explain this in more detail. If they don't come along, you can ask at Commons. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see c:COM:Licensing. That explains the requirement for licensing of images on Wikimedia Commons. The "however you want" bit of the comment above isnt completely accurate. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of good images and you will probably find what you are looking for if you try on commons. If you must use that specific image, then you will need to get permission from said website/newspaper. Cheers -Examknowtalk 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changes needed at Template:Uw-error3

Template:Uw-error3 needs changes to certain words. Some of the words are outdated; can you have it so that autoconfirmed users, not just admins, can change the words and update the meaning? Angela Maureen (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, warning templates shouldn't be edited by anyone other than admins. You just need to make an edit request on the talk page saying what you think needs changing, although I can't imagine what it is you think needs changing. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplifying language and removing content

Today there are several users (e.g. User:2A02:B80:0:94:0:0:0:90, User:2a02:b80:0:94::90 and User: making individual edits with small changes to existing pages on marine life. This includes switching out correct language (e.g. "like" for "such as") and removing content (scientific names which are already explained in following parentheses). This might be a school project - I started rollbacking and before leaving a comment on the User's page, realized the more experienced editors here may have a comprehensive way to handle this - or not? I'm here to improve my contributing. Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah they are vandals I have blocked before and already did again before I saw you post this. -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So - rollback or undo the edits, with or without putting the sequence of warnings on their User Talk page? N.B. - for juvenile graffiti-type edits, I've been merely doing a rollback or undo as these don't seem to be an actual attempt to engage the project by changing topical content. Deborahjay (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call. I often warn, but in the case of 2A02 they had already been blocked so I just blocked again. In your case you can report them to VIP and/or warn. 195 was warned a bunch but hasn't edited in hours so I didn't bother blocking. If they edit again I will end up blocking. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Waterhole is a word that seems to have a different meaning in Australia than in other English-speaking countries. Anyone know anything about the topic? Thanks, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of, I have only ever heard it mean basically a water body that animals drank from. And of course some people then turn that into slang for bars. The definition from the dictionary "a depression in which water collects, especially one from which animals regularly drink." -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always heard the slang term for a bar as "watering hole". --Auntof6 (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is what I meant. Not quite the same but assume it came from the same place. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this when I came across category: waterholes of Australia, but cannot find any other cat with “waterholes” in it. I have not checked any other Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A clue just turned up when I did a wiki-search on “waterhole”. Have a look at billabong and check the ref to “waltzing Matilda” in the View history. I find this fascinating. I hope others do too. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We just use the word for a hole with water in it, often it is a deeper part of a creek or river left when the river stops flowing, but it can also be a natural depression with water. And as above, we have watering holes too! Hope this helps.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable here to wikilink to the main (complicated) English Wikipedia?

It is possible to wp:wikilink to to other Wikipedias seamlessly (I think?). Is this allowed here? If so, is it everywhere or just in some wp:Namespaces? Is this documented anywhere? Thanks in advance for any guidance. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Within an article, no it is not. We are separate from there. We want the red links so the articles get created here. It is pretty self explanatory and common sense. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Documented in en:WP:MOS/Linking#Interwiki links:

"To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged. Exceptions: Wiktionary and Wikisource entries may be linked inline (e.g. to an unusual word or the text of a document being discussed), and {{Interlanguage link}} template may be helpful to show a red link accompanied by an interlanguage link if no article exists in English Wikipedia."

Properly we have the interwiki links of Wikidata Not really relevant... what was I thinking?. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested filters

Hi, I am wondering if anyone here can add new change filters to this wiki. There are two requests at Wikipedia talk:Change_filter. Thanks Zaxxon0 (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the request are all that good. One might be ok to tag. The other is not a filter we would want in my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although in saying that. I have an idea for the one that I didn't think was good. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits often don't work

Whenever I try making edits, it says that my edits cannot be processed due to a lack of session data. I am still logged in, and cookies aren't blocked on my browser. Why is this, and how can I fix this?

P.S: I managed to create a page, Morris County, New Jersey, but I was only able to do so while I logged out. I don't want my IP address visible, what should I do? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That would likely be an issue on your side. Perhaps try restarting your browser or your computer. Could clear cache as well but I doubt it would be that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and gender / Overcategorization

Hello all, we currently have an RfD about a few categoiies (people, by occupation, mostly), where there are separate categories for men and women. In this RfD it became obvious that there is no agreement (on the categories listed), so we can close the Rfd, resulting in a keep. I also want to point out that EnWP (which has more articles) has certain gendered categories. I would however still suggest we try to get around gendering categories; if we did, what about lesbians/homosexuals,transgendewrs... In short: introducing gendered categories leads to a myriad of problems that are not really relevant: A mmale lawyer is no different from a female one; same with politicians, or firefighters. Also: given our average category only has very few entries, e end up with smallish categories: Splitting an 8 item category, into male and female will lead to 2 categories of 4, or a 5/3 split. How often do people search for people by gender, and cannot live with the fact that they need to browse through 10-15 entries? - Also,some are probably in the wrong category: Margaret Thatcher shows up in Female scientists, but most people will remember her for being a politician, not a chemist. As to the female politicians: It might make sense to classify prime ministers or heads of state that way, but not the others. Looking at the article Margaret Thatcher, we also see and over-classification: The article is listed in 30 categories, amongst others: Women lawyers, Women politicians, Female scientists.--Eptalon (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been complaints that articles about women and topics that interest women are not sufficiently documented on Wikipedia. We have no hard evidence to determine if these complaints are true or not. Having categories that contain only women-related articles, helps us obtain some preliminary statistics to determine if these complaints are imaginary. If the RFD (deletion) discussion referred to by Eptalon is closed as a keep, I invite others to build some women-categories and judge for themselves if we have enough articles about women here. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned articles

Orphaned articles on Simple English should show the orphan template on the top of them. The template should show so that editors and people who are new to Simple can see them. But it ain't just those articles; Simple has many articles which are orphaned though are not tagged so. Sometimes, finding a link to an orphaned article is hard, and the orphaned article might stay so for a long time. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People can add that tag, but its the one tag that is pretty often discouraged to use, because it would be on so many of our articles that it would just end up making the articles look worse with no actual benefit. It is especially unnecessary if the article is already marked as a stub, as it is very likely a stub is orphaned especially if its new. Tags while they are good at pointing to an issue in my opinion very rarely result in someone actually fixing the issues, its why articles once they are tagged don't often seem to have their tags removed. No one wants to be the person to remove them. The orphan tag is the the most useless of the bunch. I can't remember the exact discussion I would have to go searching, but the reason it doesn't show is because of how little purpose it serves and we didn't want it cluttering up pages. Some wanted to remove the tag all together but others thought it was still worth having for category purposes. I think that change happened because AWB used to add the tag to all orphaned articles it would come across and people got sick of the tag cause it would end up on like 7 out of 10 articles. Personally I would still delete the tag but I know some like it so the current status as an invisible tag to discourage use is the best situation. -DJSasso (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the enwiki, the orphan tag only appears if the date is in the same month the tag was placed. If older, the tag remains but does not show. This gives it one month for hopefully someone who is reviewing new articles to see it and fix things, and then after does not disturb readers. Probably it works the same way here? Desertborn (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it does, I just forgot to mention that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertborn: I just placed this template on an article, but it does not show up. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Which one was it? I can check it out. Did you add the month and year? For example, right now the tag has to be {{orphan|date=May 2019}} for it to show up. If there are any other dates than May 2019, or there is no date, it will not show. When we get to June, none of the ones marked May will show the maintenance notice anymore. Of course, they will all still be in the category, no matter if they show a maintenance notice on the page or not. Desertborn (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertborn:Thanks, yes, you are right. I did not date my tag. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC) ...But cybot did, and it is now displaying the orphan tag. 19:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me, after reading the description Maureen Angela linked to, what an orphaned page is. I posted my question on the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An orphaned page is a page that no other pages link to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently only 1,411 pages tagged with Orphaned. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as mentioned we discourage the use of the tag. If you notice it has been rarely used in the last few years. Category:Orphaned articles 2012 was the last time that it was regularly used. Since then its only been used by people who likely weren't aware we don't really use it anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

orphan category update

Since last week 14 articles have been unorphaned, and four have been added to the orphan category. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of today there are 1,392 pages in the Category:Orphaned articles. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to keep updating us on the total. If people are interested they will go look. I suspect most are not. You continuing to update prevents the archive bot from archiving this whole section. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Do wikiprojects exist on Simple? Slightly new here. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Derpdart56: Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! WikiProjects exist here, but they are unofficial and managed differently. The projects' pages are in userspace. We have Category:WikiProjects for the main pages and Category:WikiProject user templates for user templates (for those projects that have templates), but no other categories (meaning, among other things, no categories for project members). We also don't use WikiProject banners. See Wikipedia:WikiProject for more information.
If you would like to see a list of other things thst are done differently here, you can look at this list that I maintain. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Derpdart56 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article title year formats

I just want to clarify, but has there been any recent consensus surrounding the formatting of years in article titles? I'm seeing some cases like Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 locally but en using a different format (en:1989 Tiananmen Square protests) and similarly with elections articles, where Canadian federal election, 2015 is used locally as opposed to the en title (and the US presidential election article here using the same format as en). Thanks, Hiàn (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be year first, I have been slowly fixing them as I catch them. Follows WP:COMMONNAME. When mentioned in news articles the year is typically first. I forget who I noticed had done it but I believe one person did it a bunch and that caused others to follow them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Alright, thanks for the clarification. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djsasso: I tried to follow the wiki-link you provided and ended up in the other wikipedia, but still could not find where it says that the year should appear as the first word in the article title. I am sure it is somewhere in there, but I just cannot find it. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are taking things too literally. It won't specifically say the dates there, it says to name articles what they would normally be called. In the case of major events like this newspapers generally will say things like "During the 1915 Canadian election Joe smith won." They won't say "During the Canadian election 1915 Joe smith won". -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance I can get someone to import the missing template/Lua modules? Nunabas (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I will do it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't state very clearly what meta:Global Rollbackers can do locally with the additional rights such as markbotedit / supressredirect. Given more users who are active in this wiki are getting the right it might be well a time for us to discuss. Can GRs do supressredirect on R2 moves (e.g. sandbox to mainspace)? This is not technically counter-vandalism. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Rollbackers can not operate here just as Global Admins cannot. We opt out since we have enough admins. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a proposed policy as mentioned by Vermont below, but technically it has never been passed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind I lied, we do have Global Rollbackers here per Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 49#Opt-in global rollback. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Global rights policy. Vermont (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Global sysops we did opt out but Global Rollback is global (this wiki is included too). Are we making a local policy that GR can't use their rights in this wiki? We can do that. Ideas?--Cohaf (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict, as I posted above we did opt-in as it did require opt-in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My question is that what is the scope of supressredirect for GR. Purely counter-vandalism or can like supressing a typically CSDable redirect allowed? --Cohaf (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well the markbotedit is a definite no as we don't allow admins to hide those sort of things, we just had a discussion about that and the flood flag. Supressredirect not really sure. When we opted in I don't know that it had those options that I can remember but its been 11 years. I think we probably only were thinking in terms of counter-vandalism. Don't really have a problem with supressredirect myself. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Markbotedit, iirc, only can be done by GR's when they rollback an edit, and I'm not sure there's an option not to do it. Vermont (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then I guess there is nothing to do. Just surprised it would hide their rollbacks automatically. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression GR isnt opt-outable. However, we can institute local policy to limit use of GR perms. Vermont (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be now, but I think we had to opt-in when it was first created. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Makes sense. Vermont (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Make sense now. --Cohaf (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could just approve Fr33kman's proposal linked above. Its pretty straight forward and common sense. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cohaf (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly modified and clarified a bit on that proposed policy. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So...what qualifies as enough consensus to make it a policy? Vermont (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add or change policy, don't we need to announce it so that users here know there's a proposal? I know y'all have been discussing it here on this public page, but the section heading "WP:Rollback" doesn't indicate that there's anything being proposed. Users not interested in the subject in general might not have followed this discussion, but might want to weigh in on any policy changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Typically enough consensus is waiting 7 days to see where the discussion is at that point. It's like any other discussion like Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make Wikipedia:Global rights policy a policy

After 7 days of discussion it was unanimous so I have applied the policy template to the page. -DJSasso (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See above section for original conversation about this. Vermont (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

My edits still don't work

See my older post above. I tried restarting my computer. I even tried using different computers. But it's still hard to change pages, and nothing works! Simplex Simpleton (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry loss of session data is something on your side. Won't be able to help. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Can I put pictures in pages like I can on regular Wikipedia? If yes, then how? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simplex Simpleton: How do you put pictures in the regular Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can add pictures to pages the same as on English Wikipedia. You just can't upload your own pictures. They have to be pictures from Commons. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article descriptions

I see articles with descriptions like Wikipedia:Simple talk. How can we make one? National Railway (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@National Railway: What do you mean by "articles with descriptions"? Do you mean how the page title starts with "Wikipedia:"? Computer Fizz (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: I mean when you search for an article like insect, you see a line of smaller lines below the title. National Railway (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@National Railway: Do you mean the thing that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?" Computer Fizz (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure they mean the short description which comes from wikidata and shows up on mobile. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: This is exactly what I mean.National Railway (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that, too. Does anyone know if Wikidata actually delivers descriptions in simple? (I don't especially have a problem if simple "falls back" to en, but we should get simple descriptions here if they exist.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81: No I do not believe it does. If it does I have never heard of it. --Examknow (lets chat!) 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All wiki's except en fall back on whatever is in wikidata using the language you have set in your preferences, like any other language based text on any of the wikies. For example, I use Canadian English so I get the Canadian English descriptions. Simple not being an actual language has never been able to be used for any of the internationalized text. En itself does their own thing separate from wikidata. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: I mean the description of an article. Like the article insect, the description for the article is “class of invertebrates”. National Railway (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@National Railway: As sasso said you gotta find it on Wikidata. It's not anywhere on here. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: It means the description that you see in an article under the title in mobile view. National Railway (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: I can find it, but how can I apply it to the article? National Railway (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@National Railway: I'm not entirely sure I don't use wikidata very often, or ever. You might wanna ask @Djsasso: cause he seems to be experienced with it. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: Thanks! National Railway (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: I just want to ask, how can I apply the article’s description from Wikidata onto the article in Wikipedia? National Railway (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It happens automatically. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Do descriptions apply to draft articles and main articles in both Simple English Wikipedia and the normal English Wikipedia? Also, I want to ask I know how to apply descriptions using the template Short description, but is there a difference between Template:Description and Short description or Template:Description doesn’t exist?National Railway (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Short description doesn't work here. That is an English Wikipedia only template because they don't take their description from wikidata. The one here is just nulled out so it doesn't keep getting imported from English Wikipedia. The Description template doesn't exist here either. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: So if descriptions doesn’t exist in Simple English Wikipedia, how can the article insect have the description “class of invertebrates”? National Railway (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from wikidata. In the case of insect, it is linked to wikidata item Q1390. The description you note is there in the wikidata item. In the English wikipedia, it is possible to use something different than what is in wikidata. That is the purpose of the templates you note. It is to do a different description from wikidata. But that doesn't work here; the wikidata item is used. To make it work, the article must be linked to a wikidata item, and that item must have a description. If so, it works automatically as Djsasso notes. If you see an article without the short description, the cause is one of two things. Either the article is not linked to a wikidata item. Or the wikidata item that is linked does not have a description. You can fix either of these in wikidata. But I should note, it would be best not to link a draft to a wikidata item. Desertborn (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add this detail. To learn how to link articles to wikidata items or add short descriptions, you can read these help pages: (1) Help on descriptions, (2) Help on linking wikipedia pages to an item. Desertborn (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming Email Address

I followed all the steps, and a link did get sent to my inbox, but the link says that the link has expired or something? What should I do? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a resend email link I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed the "Women by Occupation" RfD

Hello, all I just closed the "Women by occupation" RfD, listing a few categories of women by occupation (lawyers, scientists, rappers, politicians, I think). I could not see a consensus, the opinions were split, about half of them in favor, the others against. Unfortunately, this will result in keeping the status quo. I would nevertheless point out that for reasons of simplicity, we should aim towards keeping the split into male/female ... at the lowest possible level of the hierarchy. In other words: If the category in question contains other categories which are not related to sex/gender/sexual orientation, this is probably not the right point to split into gender-related categories. What also became apparent: Many politicians have another profession. People such as Cristina Fernández de Kirchner will show up in female politicians, and female lawyers (de Kirchner has a law degree). This may be an unwanted side-effect. Few people know Angela Merkel for being a physicist; most know her for being a politician. Same issue with Margaret Thatcher, who had a degree in chemistry. Gender, and gender-roles are a large field, and I do not think we should require more than the obvious male/female split in the general case. Take classical music: In epochs such as the Baroque period, society saw people in their well-defined role and function; getting outside that role was very difficult. I doubt we'll find enough articles for female musicians of that period , so that we can to make it worthwhile to implement the split. On the other hand, Farinelli was a very successful (castrato) singer; he lived in the first half of the 18th century. Finding information that someone who was successful during that age (or earlier) was also gay, will probably be difficult. I am in favor of splitting larger categories into male and female practitioners, but this split will not make much sense within our average category with the usual 10-15 entries. With this, I open the discussion, that will hopefully lead us to a manageable classification, adapted to our needs. --Eptalon (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. (I cleaned up the English just a touch to facilitate further discussion; the strikeout/underline there was the only place I wasn't quite sure of, so wanted to make sure I understood correctly.)
I would respond as follows:
  • I agree that there was not a consensus at the RfD.
  • I don't know if the split always has to happen exactly at—and only at—the lowest level of the hierarchy, but I agree that it should happen at a point where lower levels of the hierarchy also reflect the split wherever possible. It's the article being categorized that needs to go into the lowest level of the hierarchy.
    Note: Wherever possible. If we have Category:Athletes, it could potentially have underneath it "Tennis players", "Golfers", "Gridiron football players", etc. Category:Athletes, as well as categories for tennis players and golfers, could easily have male and female subcategories. The fact that the category for gridiron football players probably won't have male/female subcategories doesn't mean the parent category can't.
  • The question about politicians' secondary professions is to some extent a separate one that should be discussed in a different place. (That, of course, does not apply to cases where the politician is separately notable in the other profession, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower as a general, or Shirley Temple Black as an actor/actress.)
  • That said, I think that the rule for creating gender-split categories and the rule for including articles in gender-split categories does not have to be the same. I think that to create such a subcategory, there need to be enough articles about people who are notable for that reason (at least) to justify the category. If every single female physicist were someone like Angela Merkel—notable for something else—I wouldn't create the category. (I know that's not actually true for female physicists; I'm just trying to illustrate.) But as long as the category exists, I'm probably OK putting someone like Merkel there.
  • As a more general observation, I'm inclined to say that if gender distinction is part of the public-facing notability of the person—such as for actors or singers—or if gender distinction helps drive the notability because it bucks lopsided traditional gender splits (physicists, perhaps), then gender-split subcategories are OK. Where gender distinction is irrelevant to the notability, and where people of both genders are commonly part of the category, then gender-split subcategories should be avoided. But these aren't necessarily black-and-white distinctions; the world, after all, can be a messy place. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record the closed deletion discussion is here. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psl631 Ban Review

There is consensus to keep the ban in place. They have committed multiple violations of the ban multiple times, and as recently as early May. Vermont (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello. Per the discussion's result a bit over a year ago, the ban is reviewable in 12 months. As such, I re-granted talk page access a few days ago. They have now left an unblock request on their talk page. As it is a community ban, its review requires community input. Thoughts? Vermont (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the original ban discussion is here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read over the unblock request at their talk page and while I'd like to assume good faith, I'd like to, at the very least, see an indication by them that they realise what aspect of their behaviour was inappropriate and led to a community ban. Hiàn (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking at your unblock request it appears you were block evading there, so I looked here, and there are edits from your current range as recently as a couple months ago doing the same sorts of disruptive edits that contributed to your ban here on the same sorts of pages so it is clearly you. And I believe the only reason there aren't more recent edits on that range doing the same is that it had to be range blocked by stewards across all wikis. So I am completely against your unblock as you were block evading. And as Hian mentioned you didn't address any of the reasons you were banned in your unblock request. So as is typical I would say come back in another year or so as we have typically said in other situations like this. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've been reading around and I've come to the conclusion that unbanning will not be a net positive for the project. DJSasso's comments alone are enough for me to oppose an unban but their enwiki talkpage suggests that they haven't matured in the slightest. Absolutely not. Hiàn (talk)/editing on mobile account. 12:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. I wasnt here first round but the disruption here is way too much. The unblock didn't have sufficient confidence this NOTHERE/CIR will stop. As of socking can a CU verify are they socking? I will say unblock only on 3 conditions, 1. no socking in past 1 year. 2. Someone willing to mentor them and if there is more disruptive, the mentor / any admin can reblock easily 3. A plan on how they intend to help this encyclopedia. That's said, I don't think this is the case now.--Cohaf (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Unblock request is here Ottawahitech (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

VGA demotion for Bloc Party

I nominated Bloc Party for demotion in early April. As the nominator I don't think I am supposed to act on it. There has been no new discussion for a while and the article has not been fixed. How does this move forward? Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially an admin will have to decide there is consensus and do it. Otherwise it will sit as a failed proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How can I request an admin to examine and make a decision, then? Thank you. --Gotanda (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

import request

Can someone please import {{Catholic Encyclopedia}}? Its being used on Galileo Galilei Thanks Nunabas (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one you probably could have just copy pasted over with an attribution comment. But I have imported it for you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{CathEncy}} already exists and is mostly used on articles about the popes.--Auric (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA-class selected articles on Main Page

The selected article on the Main Page only shows very good articles. Just a suggestion, could we potentially have good articles on display as well? I fell they are of good enough condition, and it would make the selection of articles more diverse. jackchango talk 21:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles are of a much lower standard than VGA articles, I don't think we would want to put those on the front page. That being said if someone wanted to take the time to upgrade them to a level that they would be VGAs, that I would fully support. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a great idea, jackchango. We could use a little more variety on the front page and the Good Articles are good and interesting. More variety may engage a wider range of visitors. Bring even one of the GAs up to VGA is hours and hours of work so it is unlikely that even a handful will be bumped up in the near future. --Gotanda (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason you are trying to strip VGA off of the other article below is the exact reason a GA article can't be on the front page. There is a big quality gap between the two. Our VGA article requirements are nowhere near as strict as so getting an article to VGA isn't as much work as you are making it. You could probably get one there in an hour maybe two if you really worked at it and depending on the subject of course. Hell a super easy way to bang a few off is to take a FA from and just simplify it. If you are a native speaker of English you can probably bang that off pretty quickly. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
dj, I wrote from experience regarding promoting articles. Have a look at Komodo dragon which I simplified as you suggested and Jean Balukas which I saved from demotion. Both took considerable amounts of time which are not completely reflected in the edit history as some of the work was done in between offline. I guess it only took you an hour or two, though. You must work faster than I do. But to the question in front of us. I think GAs are good enough to be on the front page and help the site. I also think VGAs that are no longer VGA or even GA quality for any reason shouldn't be VGAs/GAs, and should not be on the front page Those two ideas are not incompatible; they agree with each other. Good, interesting stuff from many areas to show on the front page, stuff that needs fixing off the front page. --Gotanda (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason we have the difference between VGA and GA is because we needed a level at which the articles were ok to show on the front page. The big difference between VGA and GA is that GAs don't have to cover the entire subject. So to use your example of the one below. It would meet the GA requirements because the GA requirements don't require an article to cover everything on the subject, so being out of date would mean that it was ok to be on the front page. GAs just mean the language used is ok, but the topics are not yet covered sufficiently enough to be VGAs and thus not good enough to be on the front page. This is why I say GAs are similar to the situation below. That is the one big requirement that is different between the two levels. So if you aren't ok with articles that are not up to date on the front page then you are not ok with GAs being on the front page as that is the big requirement difference between the two. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red links in unused user subpages

I am not sure if we should comment out red links from unused user subpages. We do that for categories but should we do the same for redlinks so that they don't appear as wanted pages? I closed this RFD and I think we should discuss it here.--BRP ever 01:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We comment out content categories (both redlinked and bluelinked) on user pages (including user subpages) because content categories aren't allowed on user pages. They aren't allowed because we don't want user pages in those categories (because user pages aren't actual articles). There's no such rule for redlinked terms in the text, so there's no reason to comment, unlink, or do anything else with article-type red links on user pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I said to remove the redlinks in the AFD as a compromise proposal to keep the page. I am personally not in favour of commenting out the links. --Cohaf (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I made my comment known in the discussion, they shouldn't be commented out. The idea being that when enough people have those redlinks someone will create the templates. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone check out this page please. The creator states that they copied and pasted the information from another source. Should it be deleted? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a copyright violation. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Articles here

What is the maximum length of articles here? I have already done some significant edits on this Wikipedia by updating very old informations. Now i see, that i have much scope here as there are about 60 to 70 peoples who dont have an article and i can create their articles. But for that i need a general guidance about the very basic things i need to keep in my mind. Help is much appreciated. Yours Sincerely ClumsyMind (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no maximum size per say but here is the general guidance in en:Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline
100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
40 kB Length alone does not justify division
-DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata Bridge: edit Wikidata’s data from Wikipedia infoboxes

Machine translation and the ContentTranslation

Hey all!

Per this edit in my sandbox, I am able to confirm that mw:ContentTranslation, but more specifically Machine Translation is enabled on Simple Wikipedia.

This had come up in a conversation over at MediaWiki. I tested this on English Wikipedia and Scotts Wikipedia, and neither has this feature activated. Off-wiki, Vermont expressed his concern about this feature possibly being prone to abuse. Since he is currently not on a computer and won't be for a while, he ask me to make a post here to gather your all thoughts here about disabling it. Among his concerns were that one can't really machine translate English to Simple English (or even Azerbaijani to Simple English) and that the system is not build with Simple Wiki in mind. In my own experience translating articles like az:Almaqulağı döyüşü, I will say that it really is just translating into regular English but calling it Simple.

How do people here feel about turning Machine Translation off? –MJLTalk 02:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it on, it is no different than how most people here just copy an English article over to our wiki and then simplify it. In this case they are translating say Azerbaijani to English and then its up to the editor to take it the rest of the way to Simple English. -DJSasso (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am the strongest proponent to disable this content translation extension and machine translations. See my mediawiki contributions you will see save antivandalism is to complain about it. It doesn't help newbies in translations, it doesn't save properly and etc. I had used the extension for nearly 25 articles (4-5 here and rest are in Chinese Wikipedia). However, several problems. 1. Do WMF allows us to turn off this extension. I remember seeing a phabricator ticket by Indonesian Wikipedia asking to turn off but get stalled by staffers. I don't know is it resolved already. 2. For Simple English to English, there isn't any translation software in Content Translation, hence, when you click translate, it gives the full untranslated text. It is no difference here as someone else can fully copy and paste here. It do give problems over at Chinese Wikipedia due to poor translation. If you are using other languages, the translation will be in normal English. I will say I agree to turn off. --Cohaf (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cohaf: I mean, I find it somewhat helpful in the way Djsasso mentioned. However, I will admit it is really open to abuse. You could easily trick the tool into saving really substandard articles. –MJLTalk 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make absurd articles at anytime. That is why people watch new page creations and delete those that are inappropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Import Needed

Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, but often you can just copy paste over yourself if you make an attribution comment on the edit summary or talk page. More complicated templates imports are generally better but navboxes like a couple of these you should be able to bring over easy enough by copy pasting with the appropriate comment. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with much thanks Djsasso.--Cohaf (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful editor

Hello. I'm new here, and I'm sorry if I put this in the wrong place. There is a person here who has made unhelpful pages and a bad change. They have been told that this is not the thing to do here, but they keep doing this. I think they should be stopped from making more unhelpful pages and bad changes. (I don't know if it means anything here, but they have been blocked at en.wikipedia because their IP number looks like a problem.) Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BlackcurrantTea: and welcome to Simplewiki. My views probably do not represent others', but it is my impression that most people who participaten here are Admins and other Oldtimers. I don't know if you have posted here before (the tool is down at the moment), but if you have not I would like to congratulate you on having the courage to start participating.
Sorry for not addressing your concern about the User that you have brought to our attention. I see a lot of Users who have questionable contributions. However I have recently discovered w:Wikipedia:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values. I therefore try my best to wp:Assume good faith. We have a very limited pool of active Users here (less than a thousand). From what I have seen, many of these active Users are involved in policing the behaviour of other Users, leaving only a handful who are actually involved in building content. I would like to see more people invloved in building content.
As I said these are only my views. Your miles may vary. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, Ottawahitech. I spend more time on pages than I spend looking at what other users do. A big change to a page may take 15 minutes or even 30 minutes. When I fix bad changes, it can take less than five minutes, even when I make two changes: one to fix the bad change and one to ask the user to not make bad changes.

I think I do ok at the 'assume good faith' part. Sometimes I see a person wants to help, but they don't know how. Maybe they don't know how we add a link, or they use hard words. That's ok! They can learn how to do things here, then their changes will be better. But there are a few people who want to make bad changes and bad pages. They hurt this place. I don't want that.

Both kinds of work are important. This place is better when the pages are better, and when there are more pages. It's better with no bad pages and no bad changes, too. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackcurrantTea. Welcome here and as per Ottawahitech, I also wish to congratulate you for posting here. New users should not be afraid to post here (my 1st simple post is on this Board anyway). For that user, it's a dynamic ipv6 by COMCAST, a very busy range out there. If there is any blocks, I think is someone abusing it but yes, AGF can be important as this is a range with not a small amount of collateral. Anyway, the IP had been insufficiently warned, they have been given lesser than the needed warnings. The pages are bad, I'll warn them. If persist, the fastest way is to head to WP:VIP (we do have this here too) and an admin will help you there. Thanks a lot. --Cohaf (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cohaf. I found that a while after I first posted here. I tried the same link I use at the other English Wikipedia, WP:AIV. That's easy for me to remember. Time had gone by in between when I posted here and when I found that page, so I decided not to post about the unhelpful IP user there. That is a good note about the group of IP numbers and how busy they are, and also about the number of warnings. Thank you for reminding me. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcomed. Have a nice time here BlackcurrantTea.--Cohaf (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Candidate

Anyone want to check out Wikipedia:Proposed good articles#Lawrence, Kansas. One of the better from scratch articles I have seen created here in a long time. So would be good to get some eyes on this so it doesn't fall through the cracks. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, the country of Swaziland changed its name to Eswatini. The articles and using Swaziland have been moved to the name name. (Some by me, some by others). Now we need to move the category as well. Trouble is, I don't see the option to move it. I've never moved a category before, so I'm not sure what to do. Do I just make a new category, move everything over, and then change this one to a redirect? Or is there a way to actually move it, that I am missing? Desertborn (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is odd. I see the move option on other categories, but not this one. Desertborn (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can move it, you couldn't because it was move protected until there was a consensus. But once there was consensus for the article to move which happened awhile ago, the category needed to move to match so I have moved it. My bot will take care of moving the articles over within seven days unless you are hot to trot and want to move them all over yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll leave the article moves up to bot. Desertborn (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Can any user move a category, or must a move discussion be held first? After a User Moves a category should they notify the BOT operator so the items in the category also get moved Ottawahitech (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Djsasso, but I can address this. To move a category, you need the right that allows it. As to whether it should be discussed, use your judgment: if it might be controversial or cause any kind of issue, then discuss first. After a move, you do not need to notify anyone to get contents recategorized: the bot that does these moves looks at all redirected categories to see if they contain anything and it moves whatever it finds. Just make sure the old name has the {{category redirect}} template and not the kind of redirect that's used for articles -- sometimes I've seen a category move use the latter, but that might have been changed. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is just the same as articles, anyone can move them, and whether or not the moves should be done is the same, if the move could be controversial you should discuss them. The bot is always looking at the category redirect pages and moves anything in the old category automatically so you don't have to tell anyone. It does however wait 7 days just to make sure there isn't move warring back and forth. -DJSasso (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertborn: When you rename categories, please be sure to change any sort keys that need to be changed. Many of the sort keys in the renamed categories will need to be changed from "Swaziland" to "Eswatini". Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't even think about that. Thanks for the reminder. Desertborn (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General question regarding moving a category

What is the best place to discuss Category-moves: the talkpage of said Category, wp talk: Categories, here, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean moving/renaming one category, my preference is to have the discussion on the category's talk page so that it remains attached to the category, but also publicize it at WP:ST so that more people learn that a discussion is taking place and it gets more participation. That's my preference, but others might disagree. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename of some categories for political party color templates

I propose that we rename the following categories to the same name as enwiki:

The proposal is to change the words "parties colours" to "party colour". Example, "Canada political parties colours templates" would become "Canada political party colour templates".


  • The current names are ungrammatical.
  • It's good to match this kind of category name to enwiki's name so that we don't have issues when things are imported.
  • About half of our political party color template categories already use the proposed new naming so this would standardize the names.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went ahead with the rename, and left redirects behind. Any new categories should use the new naming. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Simple-wiki is very strict when it comes to creating new articles that are copied over from enwiki. Users are asked to attribute the page to a specific version of the enwiki article to avoid copyright infringement. However, it seems that no attruibution (and no references) are required for adding information from enwiki after the page is created. Just wondering if this is not considered a copyright infringement? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is required any time you copy over something from or anywhere else for that matter. We are just as strict with indicating you are copying something over after creation as we are on creation. -DJSasso (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are routinely added without attribution and without references. An infobox on enwiki typically represents the work of dozens of Users. Infoboxes on enwiki use the references supplied in the text part of articles. At least this is my understanding. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an infobox to an article wouldn't need it because the attribution for it is on the Template page itself (assuming it was done right). And the actual information in an infobox is pure facts so doesn't show the level of creativity needed for copyright to apply. (ie you can't copyright plain facts). References are different from attribution, references are just references and people are free to add them or not add them as they see fit as they would any other time they are editing an article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is just another example where no attribution or references were added to information obtained from enwiki. I started this article from scratch (did not consult the enwiki). After a while a third editor turned up and added unreferenced information. There is no attribution in the article to the information added. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution doesn't mean references. Attribution is just about, if you copy and pasted the content of the article from somewhere else and you need to say where. References are a separate thing. You can add information without references. Though you should include a reference if its something likely to be questioned. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archival for GA candidates?


what would you think about an automatic archival of the good article candidate proposals page? - I was thinking about a duration of 1-2 months (of inactivity)? - also can we configure Miszabot to dso this? --Eptalon (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we couldn't configure the talk page archiving bot to do it. That being said, there aren't so many an admin can't just do it once in awhile. If it looks like there are too many and they have been there a few months, archive them. Personally unless we get busier there, I myself probably wouldn't archive anything newer than a year just cause it is so slow traffic there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make this template again. It was deleted as it was unapproved last time. Nigos (talk · contribs) 10:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a version of the template at User:Nigos/Template:Africa-stub. Nigos (talk · contribs) 10:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't typically create stubs unless there are a few active editors trying to expand that particular topic. You can think of subject specific stubs as grandfathered here (though we aren't totally against creating more). If you can show that there are a few editors that are working on Africa stubs and there are atleast 1000 articles that already meet that subject that are stubs then it could be possible. But I want to stress that we don't create stubs just to tag articles with the stub tag. Someone has to actively be expanding the articles. We try to be simple here so drive by tagging is very discouraged. -DJSasso (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks. Nigos (talk · contribs) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deploy Internet Archive Bot?

I've noticed from time to time we have dead links. When I see them I try to rescue using But it seems if the IABot was active here, it would help. To do so, looks like it just needs to be approved, and then a phabricator ticket submitted. (Here is a sample). What do you all think? Desertborn (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. Is there a downside? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hell yes. I want something further, to be able to run the IAB Management Console to analyse a single page at least. Thanks for raising the issue out. --Cohaf (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I often try to get some archived links in my sources, but sometimes I'm just lazy. Support! ~Junedude433talk 14:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the bot op wants to operate it here, I would approve it as a crat. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyberpower678: Sorry to disturb here too but can you read the above and can your IAB be deployed here? Thanks so much.--Cohaf (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if someone where to open a Phabricator ticket, so this doesn't fall off of the radar.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See phab:T228123 --DannyS712 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. This is a very good idea. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question: Changes by user

I would like to find all edits contributed to an article by a certain user. To do this I click on the View history tab, and then on Changes by user (four lines down on the right). However I have been getting a 404-error for quite sometime. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, try this page. I was able to find changes that I made to a page when I looked there. I think the link on the history pages should be changed to that. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contribs isn't working? Vermont (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Special:Contribs, it's a tool on a toolserver, and there's been some migration going on recently. That link probably has to be changed in class="mw-history-legend", meaning someone needs to go to phabricator for it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even have that link so must be on a different skin than I use. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the 'find edits by user' link from revision histories at the other English Wikipedia. Standard for all skins there, I think. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have it on either. Atleast not in the location described by Ottawahitech above. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On page histories in both Vector and Monobook, at the top of the page after 'Filter revisions', there's a group of links labeled 'External tools'. 'Find edits by user' is the second link there (third, if you count the one in parentheses labeled 'Alternate'), just after 'Find addition/removal'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah doesn't exist for me on Monobook. After Filter revisions it pretty much goes straight into the revisions. Interesting. Perhaps the fact that I am admin changes what I see. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Totally what it is or its something in my custom js. Logged out and it shows up. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found where to change it. I will change the link. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing EFN


Hi, I've recently created Eminem singles discography and usually I remove the efn's however with this article there are references within the efn template and so basically I would need to remove for instance the yellow coding:

{{efn|group=upper-alpha|"Dead Wrong" did not enter the ''Billboard'' Hot 100, but peaked at number 15 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart.<ref>{{cite web|title=''Billboard'' chart search: The Notorious B.I.G. – 'Dead Wrong{{'-}} |url= |work=Billboard |accessdate=December 30, 2011 |format=XML |url-status=dead |archiveurl= |archivedate=May 13, 2012}}</ref>}}

So basically I wasn't sure if there was a way where the efn template can be removed whilst keeping the reference inside?, If there isn't should I collapse the efn note list (Eminem_singles_discography#Notes) or should I simply leave it all as is?,

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Part of the reason to use {{efn}}, or more generally its parent, {{refn}}, is that they allow you to place a reference inside a reference. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling there wasn't but thought I'd ask incase there was a miracle :),
At the time of writing the above I had a ton of cite errors but unbeknown to me my updating at template:Certification Cite Ref appears to have fixed those issues, Many thanks for your help anyway :). –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #1—July 2019

18:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter 80

Anyone able to tell me why I am triggering that filter? Nunabas (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is very odd; I'm not sure why. It should only apply to non-autoconfirmed editors. Vermont (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


There is currently on regular sites (unlike on this one) no English (or simple English) heading for adding or deleting from the watchlist. Instead, there is just a star. Please use English, not (just) iconish. Only out of irritated frustration did I click on the star, not really expecting that it would be the place for adding to my watchlist. For me and maybe a lot of other people, many icons are enigmatic -- especially before they are explained or labeled with English. Kdammers (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kdammers, I like words better than icons, too. You can use the different 'skins' in the Appearance part of your settings to change this. Different skins have different ways to watch a page. Vector (the one most people see if they don't change their settings) and Timeless use the star icon. Cologne Blue has the word 'watch' on the left side of the page. Modern and MonoBook both have the word 'watch' near the top of the page. (I can't find the word or the star on MinervaNeue.) Hope this helps. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Côte d'Ivoire vs. Ivory Coast

English Wikipedia (and Wikimedia Commons, for what that's worth) now use the English name of this country (Ivory Coast) instead of the French name (Côte d'Ivoire). Shall we do the same? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't. The country prefers the name to stay in French, and as long as there is a redirect from "Ivory Coast" I see no reason that can't be accommodated. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of maps, including Google Maps, use Côte d'Ivoire. Personally I'm in favor of what's on the map. If I see a country and want to look it up, I'll use what I see on the map. On the other hand, many news sources still use Ivory Coast. For those who want to read it, here is the move discussion on enwiki. It's got some interesting stats and research. Desertborn (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change it. Ivory Coast is almost universally used by native English speakers, and is consistent with almost all English names of foreign countries. What people say in English-speaking countries is the touchstone for cases like this. It is also consistent with "follow En". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Official name of the country is "Côte d'Ivoire", as French is one of the several official languages. Other Wikipedias (checked: Spanish: Portuguese, German) use the translated name, and not the official country name. For consistency, I'd therefore use the "common English name", and mention the official French one in the text. No one uses the old names of Slave Coast, Grain Coast, and Negroland for the coastal regions of Afica in that part any more. Since the Euorpeans only were on the coast, Negroland or Nigrita was a fancy of European cartographers. Anyway, I think we should keep it simple, and use the "common English name", other Wikis do this as well...--Eptalon (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New buildings

We have previously decided that new users putting up pages of new buildings in London should be discouraged because they are probably advertisements to sell space in the buildings. Now we are getting this for buildings in Manchester. It would be good to have some kind of consensus. Would anyone care to comment? I think they should be banned unless the buildings are clearly notable, for example, as being part of a published discussion about their architectural value. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see en:WP:NBUILDING. It doesn't say much. It does note that social and economic value can weigh into the notability discussion. But the sense I get over there is that the need for significant coverage in pristinely reliable sources is enforced rigorously. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just ensure they meet GNG or SNG. If they are so promotional, I will hope they are deleted based on promotion. If they are advertisements, and we go beyond the assume good faith point, they are likely UPE / whatsoever, and we deal it per then will be the best. Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional crisis at Wikipedia

Not sure how many readers here are aware of this crisis that started on June 10, 2019. I myself only found out about it sometime in July. The English Wikipedia community has been discussing this since June 11, so a discussion forum on Simple for our contributors has finally been created here.

This is where Simple contributors can also have their say:

Please keep discussions civil, but also allow everyone to express their honest views. Try to refrain from blanking comments by others. It is best to wp:hat such comments instead of blanking. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Ottawahitech (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment there. Seems unnecessary to me at best and I'm thinking the best course of action is to delete the page. Hiàn (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hian, I respect your opinions, but I don't believe they belongs on the page in question. Putting comments on the page itself drives away people who want to participate on the talkpage in serious discussion with no drama. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say it replicates the enwiki one, and I made a very similar section over there in the same manner that Hiàn made this one. Vermont (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself said it replicated the enwiki page, where discussion takes place on the main page, not the discussion page. It was fair to assume discussion was to take place on the main page, wasn't it? Hiàn (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiàn: and Vermont: I owe you an apology. I thought I made it clear that talk should go on the talkpage, but I failed to do so. We are all volunteers here and we do not all have access to the latest technology, not everyone can afford it. I was thinking of that when I tried to fix this by making the text BOLD, but I could not. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks the steam has gone out of the SANFRANFRAMDRAMABAN, think again:w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2 Ottawahitech (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Blocks are now available on five different language wikipedias

The NY Times knows more than I do about what the The Wikimedia Foundation is doing. An article that appeared on April 8, 2019, titled Wikipedia Isn’t Officially a Social Network. But the Harassment Can Get Ugly says that Partial Blocks are now available on five different language wikipedias, including Italian and Arabic. These software tools allow Admins to Block Users from editing particular pages. I am not an Admin, but it is my understanding that Admins here can decide how long to Block Users from editing all pages on Simple, but cannot technically Block Users from editing a subset of the pages. This is the reason Bans are Used in cases where the community only wants to Block a User from certain pages, but let them continue editing other pages. Bans are a sort of good faith agreement on the part of the Blocked User not to edit certain areas. Am I correct?

BTW, I wanted to thank User:Hiàn without whose generous help I would have been able to see this paywallled article.

And before anyone asks, yes, this is directly related to the Fram incident on English Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: A ban is usually an indefinite block issued after a community discussion when a user has been causing general disruption, vandalizing, or something similar. This kind of ban prevents the user from editing any pages. To have a ban lifted requires another community discussion.
You might be thinking of topic bans, which are at the discretion of admins. Those don't involve a software block, because we don't currently have a way to do selective blocks. With a topic ban, the affected user is told that they are not allowed to edit certain pages, or do any edits related to certain topics, or something similar. If a user violates a topic ban, there is a penalty, which is often an indefinite block. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial block software could be useful in enforcing interaction bans, but individually adding possibly tens of thousands of pages to a Special:Block page to enforce a topic ban is simply a waste of time and might break something. Per WP:BB, it seems topic bans require community consensus to implement, just like full community site-bans. How is it directly related to Fram?  Vermont (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that page does say that topic bans require a community decision to implement. I just seem to remember us having some that were decided by an admin, but I could be wrong. As to the Fram issue, I don't know if/how it's related. I was just responding to your question about how bans work, since it isn't quite as you described. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know on enwiki admins can enforce topic bans pursuant to ArbCom cases, but we have no ArbCom here. Also, I was asking Ottawahitech about it's relation as they were the one who said it's related. Vermont (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Partial foundation ban (which is what happened to FRAM case) is that one is prohibited from editing a particular project as compared to a full ban which means no WMF projects can be edited, no phab, no offline outreach activities etc. On the other hand, partial blocks (as part of mediawiki) is on a particular wiki, a user cannot edit a set of pages or namespaces. Hence, partial blocks (the tool available to admins) have no relationship whatsoever with FRAM unless harrassment is the link. If A is harassing B constantly, an interaction ban can be done so that A cannot edit B talk page (which can be enforced with a partial block regarding User Talk:B for user A). I hope this clarifies. Personal Note:I dislike partial blocks personally. --Cohaf (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cohaf: I think this is mostly intended for page bans as topic bans could involve more than just the page. Also you can interact with people without using their talk page, for example how i am interacting with you right now. Laptop Fizz (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban for Drug Equality for articles related to illegal drugs

Given Drug Equality constant edit warring which resulted in a 31hour block by Macdonald-ross on adding what he thinks is a legal fact. He seems to be persistentlythinking that his views are correct despite being told by variousadministrators that it is not so. I will henceforth propose a topic ban to the topic of illegal drugs and related pages, broadly construed, with the usual exceptions for a period of 3 months. At any moment, he may fill an appeal to have this ban to be lifted on here.

It is. See en:Drug Equality Alliance. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for topic bans?

I'm seeking community input on whether administrators should first seek community consensus at WP:ST prior to enacting a topic ban. Personally, I'm in favor of using administrator discretion on this matter, as otherwise due to the time it may take for a full discussion most administratros would likely just block the user if they are editing an area of articles disruptively rather than topic ban, prohibiting that user from editing in areas where they may be beneficial. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with administrator discretion. Desertborn (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will say let us have it admin discretion with option for review on ST. However, topic ban shouldn't be indefinite, if there is a need, let's have some discussion first. If someone need topic bans on something here for indefinite, they either are not here to contribute / needs competency is why I am thinking of discussion of indefinite bans. --Cohaf (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t know what the practice here is in regards to indef-blocks (blocked forever unless unblocked), but I have been indef-blocked, twice, on enwiki; once in 2012 and once in 2017, so I have developed some personal views on this practice. However, I don’t think this is what we are discussing here?
I have very little knowledge of wp:topic bans, not even sure we have our terminology right. However, from what I understand some if not all of the so-called topic bans on enwiki were very controversial and were done through ARBCOM. Some of those bans were even discussed by main stream media. So having admins make discretionary decisions about them here seems like asking for trouble? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decision of an administrator or administrators is ok for this. As Vermont said, a discussion would probably take a long time, and the person could make many unhelpful changes in that time. Some people have trouble in a subject area (maybe they like some music so much that they can't write about it with a neutral point of view), or they may have trouble with a kind of change (maybe they always want to use their own pictures, even if they're not good pictures for the page). These people might still help the encyclopedia as long as they don't try to do the things they have problems with. I agree with Cohaf about having the choice to review topic bans on this page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would this replace community consensus? Or just allow admins to make topic bans if they want to. Laptop Fizz (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think of it as permitting admins to place blocks on a user over specific areas similar to the way they place blocks on a user over the entire project. It would not replace community consensus, of course, and like any admin action is appealable to community consensus. In the event there is consensus here to implement some form of this, I or someone else will write up something to add to the blocking policy about this. Vermont (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that community bans came about when someone said something like "well, if wikipedia is based on consensus, does that mean we can have a consensus to block someone?" and then stuff just extended from there. meaning that if administrators are also able to block users on their own will, they should probably also be able to do the other stuff associated with it. but on the other hand, that's really only to stop immediate vandalism. other longer term stuff should usually be left up to bans although i do understand the problem of the rather small community here.
TLDR: I think Weak oppose and that it should be reserved for the community because really topic bans are not something super urgent. Laptop Fizz (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was prompted to make this discussion after I considered asking for a topic ban of Drug Equality from articles related to illegal drugs. I know on enwiki admins can place topic bans on editors who have problematic contributions in a set topic area as defined by their arbitration committee. We don't have that, but perhaps we could come up with a list of topics administrators can apply/enforce topic bans on; a list of contentious subjects. Vermont (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's settle their issue, shall we, I have drafted next section to handle their situation. I am very disinclined to have an AC/DS kind of thing. It's too complex for here. --Cohaf (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"a list of topics" would be easier said than done keep in mind, and it also looks like the topic ban is going pretty well so far. and yes it appears that you were correct because mac blocked him :) but for now i think maybe administrators should be allowed to place them unless it appears there are problem. i change my vote to Support. Laptop Fizz (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vermont mentioned this to me to get feedback, and speaking as an admin, I find these are pretty effective at combatting abuse, but sysops have to be willing to be unpopular to use them. They're fairly effective, and given how this community is relatively small compared to others, I think this would probably be the most practical way for you all to go about it. Feel free to ignore me since I don't actively contribute here but that's an xwiki perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I have ever seen an admin here unilaterally enact a topic ban. Topic bans have been used but they are usually the result of community action and usually the result of a long term issue, the Drug Equality situation below for example would not really be a good one as its a short term issue that a couple blocks would be best tried first. Topic bans are for when blocks haven't worked before resorting to full out bans. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LTA page creations?

Is there perhaps a QD criteria we can make for page creations of LTA's? For example, the many creations by JRS and recent ones by Special:Contribs/Indian Kolkatan. We could RfD the pages, which would waste community time and thus benefit the LTA by permitting them to make non-notable pages that aren't exactly explicit promotion or vandalism but still waste our time, or we could create a method by which we could delete them quickly. Perhaps there could be a QD criteria like enwiki's G5, however restrict it to being used on specific banned/blocked users who are designated as such by community consensus. Thoughts? Best regards, Vermont (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the G5 criteria has existed before, but it got removed (not sure when) as there were some disagreements about it and is now a "placeholder". Zaxxon0 (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a placeholder so that our numbers match It has never existed here as far as I am aware. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does WP:QD say that 5 and 9 were "removed" Computer Fizz (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this. Quick deletion should be for very clear cases. LTA user contributions are not always clear, because sometimes they mix good contributions in with their bad ones. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most LTA articles can fall under other QD criteria so I don't think we need to extend the criteria to deal with the few that need to go to Rfd. -DJSasso (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support rfd's should only be used for ambigious good faith cases, qd was intended to stop obvious stuff like this. Computer Fizz (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not so. RFDs are used for anything that doesn't fit one of the specific, narrowly-defined QD options, whether or not it's ambiguous or good faith. QD is not meant to have an option for every circumstance we can think of, so RFDs will be used for many different things including some that seem obvious to some but not to others. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: no offense but i don't see the similarity between "every circumstance we can think of" and "obvious stuff like this", what are you trying to say here because i feel like you don't think i'm saying, what i'm saying. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that G5 should be used for very clear obvious cases of sockpuppetry / LTA like JRS etc, I don't agree for all, some articles have some value that cannot be underminded by a summary deletion. In addition, our AFD works like a PROD in enwp, so it's fine just to RFD it. --Cohaf (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

proposed change to Template:tl

to anyone here who's interested in templates i propose a change to template:tl which shows that, whenever trying to supply more than one parameter, it will be added to a category to use {{tlwp}} instead. you can see the proposed template here. is everyone okay with this? Computer Fizz (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. The only concern I have is that this would make our copy of the template different from the enwiki one. I'm not sure how much difference that would make with this particular template, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Uw-vandalism2 is also different from enwiki, specifically the icon. i don't think making the templates different is a huge concern because of this although it would be neat to have them look similar. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as keeping templates in sync with enwiki, each template should be considered on its own merits. A vandalism template isn't comparable to this one. To me, the issue concerning synchronizing is not how it looks, but what happens if/when the template is "refreshed" from enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by "refreshed"? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean when the current enwiki version is brought over to replace the version here. We don't have an official process to do that regularly, but it happens sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so i guess NOTENWIKI can go right next to DEAL . would probably be a good idea to stop doing that IMO, or at least add a note that we made this change. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Psst: it would help if you would use actual links when you mention shortcuts: not all of us can immediately remember what they all are.) Do you mean it would be a good idea not to overwrite our templates with the enwiki versions? I think we could have a better process for that, but it's necessary sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well to be perfectly honest the reason i didn't link them is because i couldn't remember what they were called either :P. and yeah i do think it would be best to do that, especially when templates need to be simple. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a good point, but there comes a point where we have to update templates to keep up with underlying technology changes, to take advantage of new functionality, or to allow templates to work when people transwiki articles. Most of what needs to be updated in the templates isn't in the visible part where language needs to be simplified. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be best to put those notes in a comment then instead of documentation? Computer Fizz (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble braining today. :) What notes are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The note that says, "If you update this template, remember to add the category placer". Computer Fizz (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to change this template. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djsasso: late reply but the change to the template is because i frequently see people trying to use like {{tl|template|parameter}} even though you have to use {{tlwp}} for that. this category will help to fix it and won't really remove any functionality. the only downside is yet another category but that's an issue for another day imo. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the consensus here? Laptop Fizz (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a consensus the change is needed. I don't know that I have ever seen an issue with this even once. The easy solution is just to link the other template in the other templates section of the documentation (which it already is). -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't identify the pages that are trying to display parameters in addition to a template name. Even if the change were made only temporarily, we could grab the list of pages trying to do that, undo the change, then check them and decide whether to remove the parameters or use the other template. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again an issue we have discussed many times...

We are getting once again pages of the type "Anywhere Americans", which are so dotty because there is almost no American alive who does not originate somewhere else in the world. It is the way entries are not defined and controlled, and the sheer senselessness of the lists which follow. People move all over the world, and the place to put their individual movements would be on their biog page. Even then it might well not be notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to pages such as those made by 2601:81:4300:99F2:C99C:D97A:7AF6:3BE5? Desertborn (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he was, they were nuked as disruptive editing which have been to rfd previously. That being said, the topics if the pages were filled out with more detail, would almost definitely be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added more detail to the Karl Glusman page, so it should be okay now. ~Junedude433talk 15:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this subject is worth exploring (so I am putting it here), I know some other wikis have been notified by WMF and they are engaging more wikis (i.e. A message here which I will copy below). I think this wiki will be one of the hardest hit as our IP editor to registered editor ratio is one of the highest amongst all Wikimedia Content Wiki. Do read the message below which is done by Johan (WMF)

Hey everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation wants to work on two things that affect how we patrol changes and handle vandalism and harassment. We want to make the tools that are used to handle bad edits better. We also want to get better privacy for unregistered users so their IP addresses are no longer shown to everyone in the world. We would not hide IP addresses until we have better tools for patrolling.

We have an idea of what tools could be working better and how a more limited access to IP addresses would change things, but we need to hear from more wikis. You can read more about the project on Meta and post comments and feedback. Now is when we need to hear from you to be able to give you better tools to handle vandalism, spam and harassment.

You can post in your language if you can't write in English.

--Cohaf (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who edits the most on Simple Wikipedia?

How (Where) do I find a list of the most active editors on this Wikipedia? Kdammers (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: This might not be exactly what you want, but Special:ActiveUsers shows the number of edits by all users who "had some kind of activity within the last 30 days". It's sorted by user name, and there doesn't seem to be a way to sort by number of edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackcurrantTea:, Thanks for this excellent link for Wikimedia Statistics. Not sure how accurate it is for measuring editor activity on Simple, but if you click All Metrics then Legacy page views you will see that Simple is definitely being vied by more people. Between 2008-2011 it was viewed by 5 million people every month, but now it is viewed by 3-7 times more people. Way to go Simple! Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross, the numbers on that page are old. The recently active list says that someone's first edit was 27 December 2017, and that it was 368 days ago. It also says 16 June 2018 was 197 days ago. At the top of the page, it says 'Jan 31, 2019: This is the final release of Wikistats-1 dump-based reports', which I understand to mean that 31 January 2019 was the last time the page was (or will be) updated. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New button and boxes on history page

In the last month, I've seen a new button on the history pages here which says 'edit tags of selected revisions'. There's also a box to tick by each change listed on the page, if you want to change the tags for that one. Do people often want to change these tags?

Maybe I'll want to do this sometime, but I don't need the button or the boxes right now. I would like to turn it off and remove the boxes, but it's not in my settings. I tried a different skin, but that didn't change it. Is there a way to turn this off? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those have been there for as long as I can remember. Maybe you are just noticing them now. No there is no way to remove them. I believe they are baked into the underlying software so you wouldn't be able to remove them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. Maybe I only noticed it now because I've looked at history pages more in the last month. I've clicked the box when I wanted to click the radio button next to it often enough that it was annoying me, so I posted here.

There are only two other Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites I've noticed that use it, Wikisource and Spanish Wikipedia. The others I've recently visited (English, French, and German Wikipedia; Wikidata, Commons, Meta, Wikibooks) don't use it. This makes me think it's a choice that someone made, and makes me wonder again if, or how often, people change the tags. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is on English as well. Chances are its just an extra right we give with our auto-confirmed that some of the others do not, which would explain why you may not have seen it at first when you first came here and then did after awhile, but if that is the case it still wouldn't be changeable by individual users. -DJSasso (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]