Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 127

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

Deploy Internet Archive Bot?

I was just wondering if there is any progress? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You can follow the progress on this phabricator ticket. As there are a large number of tickets for that bot, I assume it may take a bit. Desertborn (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Template MMA

Please ask any of your experienced editors to make an infobox template for Mixed martial artists so that i can create articles related to them. Your help will be appreciated. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@ClumsyMind: what do you want on the template? (i.e. what inputs) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@ClumsyMind: Enwiki uses Template:Infobox martial artist, so I imported it for you. Let me know if there are any issues. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Auntof6: and @Computer Fizz:. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Update on the consultation about office actions

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • See above under "Constitutional crisis". I did tell you-all that this was a VIP issue about the boundaries between the wikis and the Foundation, but you decided to delete our discussion page on the grounds that "it didn't concern us". Well, it does concern us: it's not just about English wiki. Please spend a bit of time reading the full story of what happened. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It still doesn't concern us. Since we didn't have an Arbcom we have always fallen under their purview. Nothing has changed except they have written some stuff out. I think that is what you didn't grasp. While obviously it affects us in that what they do affects us, the difference is that on this wiki it always has, the big change in all of this is for wiki's with Arbcoms. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: Just wanted to thank @Cohaf: for bringing us, simpletons, to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team . Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: No problem, I had always advocated for more communication between the foundation and us. And to be clear, @Djsasso: I am very busy with multiple stuffs so I may not have time to elaborate but it does matter to us. The foundation is introducing something (or rather will like to engage with us) with something called partial foundation ban / temporary foundation ban. Our wiki isn't one with arbcom but that doesn't affect how we can handle such situations, are there ways to have private stuff to be discussed without T&S seems to be overstepping on our toes, those are something we can think about and raise up. I am active in multiple communities and hence, I will just give my opinion on meta after reading through again what the entire consultation is about. Best --Cohaf (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said it of course affects us in that we live under whatever they decide. But in the end we are a small wiki with under 30 active users. The whole reason we don't have an Arbcom is so that they can deal with all that crap. We very specifically leave all of this to T&S already, there is no stepping on our toes because we want them to take care of that stuff. That is why the whole "the sky is falling" rhetotic that Macdonald-ross had above is not really warranted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso:. To clarify, you meant that we will accept if T&S does something like FRAM case here. Like we take office actions as a policy page not like per enwp an information page. It will be good to get local consensus to give full authority to give like say a 1 year ban on Simple for something. I am not opposing this but is there any instance this is discussed locally? I don't oppose full global bans but these I think we still have some room to discuss. --Cohaf (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to Simple Wiki

Hi. Just wanted to let everyone know (not sure if you remember me) that after a very long break (about five years with very rare edits to Simple Wiki) I have decided to return here, mainly to help with anti-vandalism efforts since it seems to me that there is still a need for that around here. I don't think I'll be doing any article work though, at least for now. Just wanted to mention this in case (for the people who were here before) are surprised to see me back. Reception123 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) Hiàn (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


Can someone possibly figure out what seems to be malfunctioning, or at least is different in contrast to the corresponding template on enwiki e.g. which does prefill reasons and doesn't open a new page, whereas this one does.

[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|{{#if:{{{reasonlink|}}}|wpReason={{{reasonlink}}}&|}}action=delete}} deletion]

...seems to indicate that a reason is filled, but that doesn't happen for me, and I'm not sure what's making it want to open a new tab. -- Lofty abyss 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: according to your contributions you are using twinkle to nominate qd's right? that is what is causing the new tabs to open, not the actual QD template. if you don't like that you can edit your preferences here, or nominate pages for QD "by hand". And fullurl is for internal links, not external.
Sorry i may be misinterpreting what you are saying so if I have it all wrong could you try to rephrease? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I've disabled it in prefs and deleted the global js page so it wouldn't have an effect here, and I still get no prefilled reasons, still opens a new tab. -- Lofty abyss 12:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lofty abyss, Djsasso: Well to the best of my knowledge templates are not capable of opening a new tab so you might want to check the javascript. Also I pinged Djsasso cause he is good with wiki javascript. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Numberblocks editing situation

If you see the history for Numberblocks it is clear that there is a sort of edit war going on where different IPs argue over if a character in this TV series is a male or a female, and this has been going on for a long time. I've discussed with Vermont on IRC and he suggested that I write a thread here so we can discuss what to do. I'd suggest leaving a message on the IPs talkpages and asking them to discuss via the talkpage rather than continuously undoing each other's edits as they are currently doing. If they continue, perhaps a temporary protection for that page will be necessary, as currently their edit war is not constructive. Reception123 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on this I have taken the liberty of asking the IPs on their talkpages to take the discussion to the article talkpage rather than undoing the edits. --Reception123 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Reception123! If this continues, I would recommend to protect the article so only auto-confirmed editors can edit. Desertborn (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was also thinking would be an appropriate action. Reception123 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm now requesting that an admin takes a look at this and possibly take action by semi-protecting the page, as it's obvious that the IPs will change every time and this edit war has been going on for far too long. Reception123 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming movies

I'm looking for ideas on how to manage this category. I just removed 14 entries from it for movies that have already been released. (There are 8 entries left.) I'd like to find a way to manage the category so that movies don't stay there too long after they are released. (Some of the ones I removed were released last year.)

Here are the ideas I could think of:

  • Eliminate the category, and just leave the "<year> movies" categories to tell us when a movie is coming out/came out.
  • Disallow hardcoding the category, and use the {{movie date}} template to specify the release date. That template adds the upcoming movie category only if the release date is still in the future. The template is most often used in infoboxes, which some of our movie articles don't have, but it could also be used in the text. There could be issues with this, however, if a movie doesn't get released on the expected date.

Even if we manage this category better, however, article text usually needs to be changed at the time a movie comes out. There is a template that will use different text based on whether a specified date has passed, but some movies don't get released on the date originally expected. That's something else that could be managed better.

Your thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think both ideas are good, but I'd prefer the second one because even if the movie doesn't get released on the original date, that could be updated and I don't think that occurrence is that frequent. As for the infobox issue, that could be a good way to encourage us to get more movie articles to have infoboxes. Reception123 (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see this as being any different than updating any other out of date data. Just fix it when you see it. Not everything needs bureaucracy to fix. (obviously the best solution would be just for people creating the pages to add the infobox so that it uses the template and they don't have to hard code but that is never going to happen every time and you can't disallow hardcoding, that is just ridiculous bureaucracy on a wiki that is trying to be simple) -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you think it isn't important to fix this, but you can disagree without calling my suggestions ridiculous. This wouldn't be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy; it's a good faith effort to address a problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would almost definitely be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, and would be ridiculous. It is something that you do quite regularly. I don't know if its just an OCD thing. (and I don't mean that negatively) But you have a very big problem with always trying to create bureaucracy here that creates more issues than it solves. It isn't that I am just disagreeing, but that I think its an extremely ridiculous idea so it requires using a word that explains how bad the idea is. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yea it might be possible to make the category automatically be removed after a certain point in time but i do agree with djsasso about other stuff. There is a problem of having too much automation but without it, sometimes this stuff can go unnoticed for years. Computer Fizz (talk | contribs) 23:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


Checking our page, the infobox, which seems identical with that of En wki, fails to present the two diagrams of the molecule. The diagrams are useful to us, and any help here would be appreciated. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: I fixed it, see if it is acceptable. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it's fine now.Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)