Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 127

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deploy Internet Archive Bot?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@ClumsyMind: what do you want on the template? (i.e. what inputs) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Thank you very much @Auntof6: and @Computer Fizz:. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Lofty abyss and 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes, that's what I was also thinking would be an appropriate action. Reception123 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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

"Release Dates" in movie articles

There are tables that show the release dates for specific regions in movies articles such as this. I don't know if they should be in these type of articles as they're possibly incorrect and unsourced. Plus these tables aren't even on enwiki. Zaxxon0 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these before, and while I've never directly taken action to remove them or anything, I don't think these tables are entirely encyclopedic. Hiàn (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are often added by an LTA. I revert them when I find them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit notice

I tried to make an edit notice for Talk:Main Page but it's not working for some reason. does anyone know what i did wrong? Computer Fizz (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it isn't working, but I don't think you should unilaterally make such a page outside your own userspace. It should be discussed first. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i guess let's discuss it then. Personally i think the page should be fully protected indefinitely, if people wanna talk about the main page they can do so here (and it'd probably be a better place to do so anyways since 1) changing the main page is pretty big important deal 2) article talk pages are a lost cause ). Who agrees? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting protecting the talk page? I really think talk about a particular page belongs on the talk page for the page in question, so that the discussion doesn't become hard to find as Simple talk gets archived. We do usually need to use Simple talk to let people know about those discussions, though, because otherwise few people would see them (mostly only people who happen to be watching the page). In the case of the main page, however, we have a lot of people watching it (1,450, although I don't know how many of those are active), so it's more likely that someone would see comments there than on most articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hm, maybe the edit notice would be a better idea then. do you support or oppose it? Computer Fizz (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an edit notice there, talk about the main page should be on the main page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but people are using it for stuff that's not that. if you look at the page history, it's people misusing the page and then it being reverted. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things happen that shouldn't happen, that doesn't mean you have to slap notices up everywhere. Remember, keep things simple. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VGA Candidate

Anyone want to check out Wikipedia:Proposed_very_good_articles#Lawrence,_Kansas? I'd rather not let this one slip through the cracks. I would be very grateful and humbled if anyone read the article to find any issues or give ideas on how to improve it. It's been over a year since our last VGA anyway. It's about time we get another. ~Junedude433talk 15:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am always getting logged out

Simple English Wikipedia always logs me out. I cannot log in now. Can someone manage to fix this? CarlB Flyingcock (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check your cookie settings. If you have previously ticked the "keep me logged in" box, then typically you should be able to stay logged in. Ensure they are enabled for this site and that they're not being cleared and that should be able to fix the issues. As is apparent, this is (very likely) not something the community or devs can fix, it is instead an issue on your end. Hiàn (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Change level 2 warning template icons to orange

I am asking for comments on this. I think it should be done to keep it consistent with the regular Wikipedia. --Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 12:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no need for simple to follow "the regular Wikipedia". (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think we should do something just because the English Wikipedia (or as you call it, the Regular Wikipedia) does it. ButI still think it should be different, like, the same icon for 1 and 2? Really? It causes confusion on whether it's a 1 or a 2. I support. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support True. They can be confusing. --Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 20:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't remember how many times we've been through this. The status quo should be kept. Hiàn (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This has been discussed far too many times. The current colour is the preferred colour. The first two are the same colour because they are both essentially the same level, some people start "warning" on 2 others on 1. They are essentially just different wordings for the same severity. We don't use orange because we don't want it to appear too "severe". We also have an LTA who keeps trying to change the colour of this template so it also has me suspect of the account that is behind requesting this yet again. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain --Znotch190711 (Talk - Contributions - CentralAuth) 02:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DJSasso, I would think orange may make level 2 seem too severe. (see WP:BITE). Desertborn (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: New warning template.

I am proposing a new template for people that do vandalism to citations, such as removing or damaging them.

Level 1:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes did not seem to be useful for citations and have been reverted or removed. If you want to learn more about citations, please visit citing sources, and test these out on the sandbox, and not main articles. Thank you.

Level 2:

Please do not make unhelpful changes to Wikipedia. The changes you made seem to damage citations, which constitutes as vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you want to learn more about citations, please visit citing sources, and test these out on the sandbox, and not main articles. Thank you.

Level 3:

Your recent changes are damaging citations, which is vandalism and are not acceptable on any Wikipedia. Please stop. If you continue vandalizing, you will be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia. If you want to test or learn about citations, please visit citing sources, and test these out on the sandbox.

Level 4:

Your recent changes are damaging citations, and is vandalism, and this shows that you want to harm Wikipedia. This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia.

I will not do a level 4-IM because I cannot see a reason that would be needed. Please leave your comments below. --Wyatt2049 | (Talk) or (Stalk) 15:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to have different templates for each kind of vandalism. Just use the normal vandalism templates, or better yet, don't use any and write a personal message. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, ideally these templates should be made only for things thathappen a lot. I've only seen this happen once or twice so itshould probably just use uw-vandalism. At least the level 4 should.
What I might supportthough, is replacing those "single issue" stuff with 4 levels. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After you have warned them once for the single issue you just switch over to the vandalism template because after they are aware its an issue it is vandalism. If you really want levels that is. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as we have sufficient warning templates already. We can just use the normal vandal one for this unless it becomes a big issue. Desertborn (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Over the past few days, there have been a lot of discussion about this user. He was recently blocked for disruptively editing, and, while his actions may be down that path, i was surprised to see it happen so fast. I see he has a lot of problems about icons and stuff which while it may be fine in his userspace, is now extending outside of there. I do not think blocking and banning him is the right way to handle this situation. I think someone should mentor wyatt to help him editing more like the other people on the Simple English Wikipedia. Ideally it should be an administrator to make sure they can block if needed...but if none of the admins want to, i will. Anyone wants to help? !!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer Fizz (talkcontribs) 20:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have given Wyatt2049 some suggestions on their talk page. Others have as well. Hopefully Wyatt2049 takes them to heart. In particular, I have suggested to focus on only content areas for now, and stay away from anti-vandal work, RFC, AfD, etc. If followed, that may allow time to grow and learn away from the areas where they are having issues. We'll see what happens. But several have tried to help, for sure. Now we wait and see what happens. But I would say, feel free to mentor if you would like. Desertborn (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages about cities from the US are orphaned. Let's fix that.

I think we need to start a list or something because there's a lot of orphaned pages about cities in the great plains. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of orphans of every subject. That is a normal state for a small wiki. Feel free to pick a subject you like and work on expanding those small stubs. This isn't specific to those types of articles. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which states have a bunch of orphaned cities? I can try to use my basic template for city articles to get a bunch of links and content. Just point me in the right direction. ~Junedude433talk 21:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma and Arkansas specifically. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Embassy on en.wiki.

Would it help simple's relationship with en.wiki, I don't know. But it may help us recruit more people to help us in the wiki. Just a thought. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we could use more editors here, but recruiting on a large scale could cause us more work for a while, so we'd need to be prepared for that. Most people who come here from enwiki don't understand that writing simple language is actually more difficult than writing regular English. It also takes them a while to understand how this wiki is different in ways other than using simple language in articles. Those things can be overcome, but if we get an influx of new editors, helping them learn could take time from doing things we'd otherwise be doing. New editors who can fit in here would be a net gain, but possibly not in the short term. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure what an embassy in this context is, but anything to get more people here I see as a net gain. It's no different than if you hire a bunch of new people for a job; sure, they will probably make some mistakes (I know I made my fair share here), but eventually, they will be fine. @Auntof6: is concerned that it will take time to "train" them which could be spent doing something else. It's a valid concern, as it's a basic opportunity cost setup, but think about how many people frequently make large contributions. The answer is very few. Often times, it's new people that want to actually make something; that's how it was for me with the Lawrence, Kansas article. Now that article is a proposed featured article, something that we haven't had in a year. I would say the mistakes made were worth hundreds of pages written and a possible featured article.
Considering the lack of content here, anything to get more ediotrs is better. Some may be problematic, but considering that these are Wikipedians, they usually have the best intentions at heart and would probably be willing to improve. Short-term pains for long-term gains due to many new people. It's what Overland Park had to go through; it's nothing we can't handle. ~Junedude433talk 21:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think having an embassy could help our relations with en more. Remember, we're short-staffed here and training new editors could help us in the long run. Yes, it would be hard, and no, it wouldn't help us in the short term. But it's worth looking into. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please perform above-mentioned move. The title is misspelled. Thanks in advance, --Count Count (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

proposed change to mos

Hello, i'm currently proposing some gender related changes to the MoS. This is a notification, so please keep all discussion there and not here.

(note to self: delete this when the discussion is over) Computer Fizz (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to link to the actual discussion.... -DJSasso (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style . Bottom two sections Computer Fizz (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move on 15 September 2019

I want to move Hexadecimal numeral system to Hexadecimal, because the word "Hexadecimal" widely means "base 16". –Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 10:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hexadecimal redirects and it's what most people seem to use (commonname), I wouldsupport movingit. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was pretty uncontroversial so I have moved it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List suggestion

Can we please have a list of atari computers? -Derpdart56 (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Derpdart56: Yes, we can. Go ahead and create it. If you want someone else to create it, list it at WP:Requested pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan Era Tax Cuts and Blocked Citations

Hi, I'm taking a poly sci class and we watched Inequality for All, a 2013 documentary. What became really apparent to me was how few Americans understood that the American tax system taxed the richest tax brackets at a lower rate than the poor tax brackets.

I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts and the most important parts needed updating. Specifically the term " cut the highest Personal Income Tax rate from 70% to 50% " is really vague because its referring to the most rich income tax bracket but when read sounds like it might be applying to some random category, like dolphin owners who have recently had a child, or anything really.

But when I tried to edit the page using the various citations found online, those were blocked, even though they were correct according to my memory of accounting class textbooks. I may eventually try to cite the accounting textbooks directly into the page, but there isn't a good reason for it and keeping Nerdwallet.com 'banned' doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

@ First of all, you're talking about the English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Second, what error did you get when you tried to add it? Sometimes webpages are blocked because theyare unreliable sources. Computer Fizz (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create protection

Joél Filsaime related articles have been persistently recreated for promotion, etc. As such, is it possible to have a create protection on the above pages? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of those have ever been created. And really he will just slightly modify the name he uses anyway so there isn't much point. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the record label (D-Ploy Records) also blocked from creation.
And, some of these may have already been salted but the OP missed a couple:
Those are just the ones from Simple Wikipedia. There are plenty more if you look at his history across all of Wikipedia.
I don't know if you do it on Simple.Wiki, but on En.Wiki we can put in edit filters that prevent certain words and phrases from even being used in articles. Consider it. Quakewoody (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Djsasso, Auntof6, Vermont, and Macdonald-ross: Anyone? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

harrasment by 2A03:E600:100:0:0:0:0:17 . (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, reverted, and deleted. In the future if it's urgent, you may want to use IRC as you might get better response times. Best, Vermont (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Alright, noted and thanks! (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 06:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English, please

I read English, French, Dutch, german, Spanish, Latin and some Russian, Portugese and Korean, but Symbolish is a language I never studied. If there is a Wikipedia page in this language, fine -- but please replace or at least translate it. How is an English-reader supposed to know that * (my keyboard doesn't have the star symbol) means "Put this on/Remove this from my watch list?Kdammers (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's present on all installations of MediaWiki. If you click it, it'll provide an explanation. It's pretty standard to use symbols to abbreviate things in software. Best, Vermont (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that but star is the symbol used to bookmark in the most popular browser on the planet. It is a pretty standard symbol across the web for bookmarking/saving to a list. -DJSasso (talk)
You don't even need to click it (which would toggle the watchlist status). If you mouse over, it will say "Add to watchlist" or "Remove from watchlist" (depending on current status). StevenJ81 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so, some people might know that a star for bookmarking "is the most popular on the planet" -- a lot of us don't or didn't until now (and could easily forget it). Mousing over is not that effective since on many computers in the world are slow enough that a mouse-over won't pop up a message unless one holds it long enough -- and knows to do so. I am in no way convinced this tab shouldn't be in English here on simple English. Kdammers (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact that symbols are often used because they are easier to understand cross language. It isn't possible for it to be in English, it is baked into the software. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Internet Explorer page has been vandalized, but it's been there a while. Thought I'd bring it to attention. Something about IE and Firefox having cancer? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Derpdart56:  removed. Thanks for letting us know. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 17:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy delete this please? It appears to be vandalized Derpdart56 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done by User:Peterdownunder StevenJ81 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: The Orphan Relocation Taskforce

Here's my idea: A task force dedicated to reducing the number of orphan pages on simple! It would be beneficial to the wiki as a whole. I think it's a good idea... Let me know if it is! Derpdart56 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned last time, go ahead and create any articles you think need creating. We have very few editors here, and since we are all volunteers people work on the subjects that interest them, so pick a topic and get creating. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Derpdart56: There are lists of cities for Oklahoma and Arkansas. Doesn't that mean they are technically not orphaned? Also, as said by @Djsasso:, there aren't many editors here, so people will usually edit in what they're interested in. I assume you are from Arkansas and/or Oklahoma if you're so interested in making sure those states' city articles aren't orphaned? If so, you would probably be the best candidate to make the articles that would de-orphan them. I'm from Kansas, so I make a lot of articles about places in Kansas. I will end up needing to link city articles to those articles. If you're that concerned about orphaned pages, try making an article about the history of the state, or maybe just improving the state's article. You could make a section in each article about the various regions in those states, and then you could link cities in those sections. It's what I did in Kansas's main article, and it works well in the History of Kansas article. You should give it a try! ~Junedude433talk 14:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep since the list articles exist they are not orphaned. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lil bazza

He has vandalized Hamilton(name). Could someone please look into this user? He seems suspicious. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the vandalism and provided a warning. Just so you aware, you can also help undo vandalism when you see it. Here's how. Desertborn (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Kansas PGA

Got another possible Good Article to add to the list: History of Kansas. If anyone is willing, I'd love it if someone could look it over and give feedback. It would be much appreciated. Currently, there is no "History of" article that is a Good Article or Very Good Article, so I hope my page could set some kind of standard. I already got the Lawrence, Kansas article to GA status (and possibly VGA status), and I'd love to keep the momentum going. Thank you in advance! ~Junedude433talk 14:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


If a concept is complex, can I explain it in a simplified way? Derpdart56 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as long as it is factually correct. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to New Changes

watch the fireworks. there's an ongoing edit war between Zaxxon and an IP vandal. Derpdart56 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visual edits on talk pages?

Hi. I'm not good with source edits, so I was wondering if we could implement visual edits on talk pages. Derpdart56 (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Derpdart56: This is something built into the software (MediaWiki), so not something that is likely to be changeable locally here. (If I am wrong, hopefully an Admin will come along and set me straight on this). I found this discussion about this question if would like to learn why it doesn't work on talk pages. I think once you get more practice with source edits, you will come to appreciate them. Personally, I really dislike the visual editor now that I feel comfortable with source edits. I never use it. Of course, it is different for each person. Desertborn (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dream market

This page is possible advertising, can someone look into it? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link for the lazy. I looked it over. I see nothing that would seem like advertising. If this is considered advertising, it's a pretty awful job. Half of the article is about a breach of security and how many accounts are now under control by the Dutch police. If I were wanting to buy drugs for some reason, I certainly wouldn't be using a site that had a lot of users' accounts found out by police. ~Junedude433talk 19:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it was created, there was a link. Sorry, It was a misnomer, it was vandalism. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, search Dream Market/ and hit enter. That's the right page. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. I agree that this page looks like advertising. It should be deleted. In the future, please link to the article you are talking about. ~Junedude433talk 20:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia has reached over 150,000 articles

Title says it all. We've now reached more than 150,000 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you to everyone for all of your work! ~Junedude433talk 20:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What amazing :) As a bonus fun fact, when the simple english wikipedia was first created, the english wikipedia had 150k articles. So now we've "caught up" :) Computer Fizz (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


seems like a barrage of vandalism has become to sew. why? IP's need to be watched or blocked. Baozon90 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Hello everyone. Wikipedia Asian Month 2019 is going to start soon in November. It's an online edit-a-thon where participants create pages on Asian topics. The editors whose articles meet the requirements get a postcard(s) from Asia. The requirements and other information can be found in the linked page, on the Q&A, and on the local page. I will update the page soon and sign us up if anyone is interested in participating this year. Also, please let me know if someone else wants to be an organizer this year. Thank you and happy editing.--BRP ever 00:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Letters in other scripts and languages

The arrival of dozens of pages like Gimel leads me to ask about policy. Do we want to accept such pages? Should we delete them? Personally, I don't see sense in having a page on a single letter or symbol which is part of a larger whole.

I think it best to redirect all letters or symbols to such a more substantial page covering the whole script. Anyway, editors wanting to have them deleted will have to wait a moment until we have a consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that a number of other languages have such pages, for each letter in a script. For example, in the case of the page you linked above, there are 16 linked languages through wikidata. These include German, French, and other major languages. Also, it is not linked to that, but enwiki does have a page as well. en:Gimel. It appears quite substantial. See also other examples like en:Dalet. I learn towards following the other languages and allowing the possibility of well developed pages in the future. With stubs to start. Especially for historically important languages like Hebrew or Greek, etc. Desertborn (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that pages like He (letter) and Aleph have existed since 2008. Aleph, to name one, has more page views per month than many of our pages. Desertborn (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we do, the notability is easy to establish. Anything that meets WP:N can have an article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deleting them, but i'm neutral between a redirect and a full-blown article. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew letters, as with letters in most scripts, are easily notable. Vermont (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do see the need for separate pages in cases like the Greek Pi, where a perfectly good case can be made for a separate page. Where a case can be made, that's good. Otherwise I would say that a script is notable, but letters have no meaning except as members of the script. I don't know why 'He' is mentioned: nothing is said about it. Without content it amounts to saying "X exists". It's been like that for over ten years. What do readers think when they arrive at such a page? Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh.. Help

Any admins: Please look into TAPCLAPgamesfansince2018. He is attacking a user that banned him on en wiki, Cullen328. There's an ongoing edit war between Zaxxon0 and this user. Thank you. DO NOT trust any block requests by him on the admin's noticeboard! He's trying to get Zaxxon blocked. Derpdart56 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managed at AN. Vermont (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, Kansas PVGA

I'd hate to be a bother or impatient, and I know that things don't move that fast here, but it has been a month since any comments have been posted about this proposed VGA of Lawrence, Kansas, and I feel like it's slipping through the cracks. We don't get many VGA proposals often (and we have very few VGAs already), and I would really appreciate if any other editors could take a look at it just so that it doesn't get stuck for too long. Thank you to anyone that looks at it! ~Junedude433talk 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I block xXGamer BoiXx?

He is a griefer and only vandalises articles. Derpdart56 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can block users, so no. I know it's confusing as on basically every other website blocking is peer-to-peer, but on wikipedia only admins can block users. You can request they be blocked at WP:VIP. Computer Fizz (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone specializing in religion, I need an article improved.

Hello! This article, which is a fairly recent article, is a hoax. Can anyone take the en Wiki article and simplify it? I am not good at traditional editing because I focus more on reverting vandals. Thanks in advance, Derpdart56 (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article because it was vandalism. A new article can be created if desired. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project

07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've got another article that needs deleting

This article appears to be advertising and isn't notable. Can someone delete it please? Derpdart56 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:QD and also WP:RFD. After you have considered those, then please feel free to follow the process that seems most appropriate for this case. Desertborn (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RFD would seem to make the most sense. The article is too well-formatted for it to be a candidate for quick deletion. That being said, it is a poorly-written article with sources that aren't great. It definitely needs to be improved, but not sure if it's really worth deleting that quickly. ~Junedude433talk 19:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]



I have researched the requirements of becoming an autoconfirmed user and have found that generally you need only to make a minimum of 10 edits and have a registered account for more than 4 days. I have made the necessary edits, now how will I know when I cam autoconfirmed? Don't I have to wait until I am autoconformed in order to create my own Wiki page?

Thank you all --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dst20191 (talkcontribs)

@Lawson Bell: You should be able to see this at Special:ActiveUsers. Go to that page, enter your username, press enter, and you should see yourself in the list with whatever rights you have.
I don't know if you have to be autoconfirmed to create your user page, but there's an easy way to find out: try creating it!
Aside from that, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. If you have any questions about how things work here (some things are different from English Wikipedia), feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have asked this maybe on the wrong wiki. You have only made one edit here and your account is only one day old here. You perhaps may have been intending to ask at English Wikipedia? -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even thoguh the signature said Lawson Bell the message above was actually added by Dst20191. Maybe this is part of theconfusion? Computer Fizz (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I was looking at the right edits. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

articles needing images?

where can i find a list? Mazaia900 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazaia900: Check out Category:Articles_needing_pictures for info Computer Fizz (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazaia900: If you're going to work on adding images, please consider adding infoboxes with images where possible, if there isn't already an infobox. If there is an infobox, add the image inside it where possible. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


how can i get them into the mainspace? is there a submit button? Caveduck21 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are at the right board? - this is Simple English Wikipedia, to my knoweldge we have no drafts; as to articles created in userspace, they can simply be moved. The section corresponding to Sipmle Talk at English wikipedia is probably the Village pump.--Eptalon (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you move an article from userspace to mainspace, please be sure to remove the resulting redirect from the userspace page. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic lock

If you guys can, can someone please topic lock anything relating to Relay Ball (sport)? Thanks. --Derpdart56 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea for something a bot could do.

Dunno if this breaks rules or not, but if we can automate the QD process, it could be a good thing. --Derpdart56 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a bot that automatically tags pages for quick deletion if it thinks they break the rules? (Like for ChenzwBot but new page creation). That could be possible but a little difficult to do.
Unless you mean a bot that automatically deletes pages tagged for QD, which is a big no-no, because that gives anyone the power to delete a page. And the AI may not be able to properly determine if it should be deleted -- and leave the job for a human to do. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: A bot that tags pages, like CheznwBot. --Derpdart56 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

1. Apparently an IP vandal is posing as Antandrus and should be ignored.
2. Justin86e is vandalism only account that messes with articles.  

Please block them both. Thank you.--Derpdart56 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff should be posted to WP:VIP and not here. Justin86e is not a vandal, by the way. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beta feature "Reference Previews"

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing WikiProject Mountains

Hi all. Some months ago I made sure we had a page for each mountain on the List of highest mountains. As I created the pages, I collected a number of useful templates and other resources. Since I am going to continue working on mountain topics I decided to make a real WikiProject out of it. User:Desertborn/WikiProject Mountains. Please feel free to join if you are interested. Desertborn (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few things/ideas.

First, signpost maybe? Second, there are some permission requests needing attention. Thank you.--Derpdart56 (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a sign post do you mean? And yes the permission requests may take several days to process, it's only been a day be patient. Vermont is usually the one who handles them so most likely you will have to wait for him unless it's something extreme. Computer Fizz (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our equivalent of The Signpost is Wikipedia:Simple News. Chenzw  Talk  07:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Some vandal's been reverting all of my edits. --Derpdart56 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's Steriev for ya. I've blocked the account and reverted his undos. Best, Vermont (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Who is this guy, anyway?--Derpdart56 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A WMF-banned editor who's been vandalizing and harassing people for about 15 years on Wikipedia, and longer elsewhere. Vermont (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. That's a grudge if I've ever seen one. --Derpdart56 (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News

I think we could revive it. I mean come on, it's been like 8 years. --Derpdart56 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would take more time to work on than it's worth. Our community is relatively medium-sized, and I think that trying to support a frequent publication like that would take up a lot of time that could better be utilized elsewhere. Vermont (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. --Derpdart56 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although, that isn't to say you should be discouraged to work on your news. The same argument I wrote a few minutes ago also applies to communities of any size, and that doesn't mean you shouldn't do stuff like that, I just think that a large effort to make news where people take off time they would have spent doing other work has too high of an opportunity cost to be beneficial. Vermont (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Would it make a good wikiproject though? --Derpdart56 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Purplebackpack89's community ban

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has requested for a review of their community ban. Before weighing in, please take some time to (re-)familiarise yourself with:

--Chenzw  Talk  03:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by PBP89

I'm not going to grovel, but I think this should be lifted. It's been eight years. That's insane. The block was ham-handed IDONTLIKE it from the beginning and there's no reason for it to continue. Also, if there really were serious problems, I'd have been banned from other projects, which I have not; not anywhere close. The fact that I haven't been blocked in over two years anywhere else, with thousands of edits since then, is all the evidence I need that this block is unnecessary.
I will try to be better in my interactions with other users. I think there's evidence that I have been better in other projects. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seeking specific areas that I'm going to change, I seem to recall one of the things that caused some problems here was a contentious GA or VGA nomination. I've sworn off GA, VGA and FA nominations here, English or anywhere. (Note: that doesn't mean I don't improve articles, it means I don't engage in the GA, VGA or FA process). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) (Again, copy-and-paste-able)[reply]


  • They're presently a trusted editor with some permissions on the English Wikipedia. I support an unban, as it's been so long and if there are more issues we can simply rediscuss and reinstate the ban. Vermont (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those who commented in the fiest discussion are no longer around. As one of the few who were, I'd support lifing the ban. The editor has grown older. I currerently see no reason not to unban. --Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember the drama involved in the ban discussions, although I didn't take part in them at the time. I would be happy to see the ban lifted, BUT this should be on a ONE STRIKE basis. If the original banning behaviour is repeated, then an immediate indefinite ban should be put back in place. Happy for people to get involved and help, don't have the time or the patience for drama.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading his unban proposal, I still see roots of what got him banned, and that it seems to be the same unban reason as always, but I also think we can't fully know if he's changed until we see it in practice. So I agree that, with some other people above, that he should be unbanned but if his actions are repeated within a short enough timeframe for him to be banned again, which I think could satisfy everyone since if the problems stop then there'd be no need (like ROPE). Computer Fizz (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still Oppose. Computer fizz sums it up his unblock request still shows what got him banned in the first place and had all his previous request rejected. He still doesn't acknowledge why he was banned which is a requirement of having the ban lifted. He still seems to think there wasn't an issue and does not take responsibility for his actions. --DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why it is so hard to take responsibility and accept mistakes. This is the same kind of reasoning as always, what's so different this time?--BRP ever 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unban, on the following grounds:
  1. The current unblock request alludes to some form of admin abuse that led to the user's original block and implies that the original block was made in error/should never have been made in the first place. I will, on procedural grounds, oppose any unblock request that attempts to misrepresent the original circumstances behind the block, be it through statements, suggestions, omissions etc. made either directly or indirectly, and will continue to oppose to future unblocks/unbans until such misrepresentations are withdrawn and/or corrected.
  2. Community standards differ across projects; just because other Wikimedia wikis have not decided to ban a user does not mean said user is not problematic on this local wiki and (thus) warrants a ban from this wiki.
  3. A search of the ANI archives on EN wiki reveals that several other established editors on EN (as well as uninvolved sysops who close discussions on noticeboards) have also shared some concerns on the user's adherence to community standards. Why there hasn't been a ban yet is not the concern of this wiki, and something left to the discretion of the EN community/ArbCom.
  4. As also have been highlighted by some people above, no acknowledgement of the behaviour leading to the ban has been shown (also related: point 1 above). I have also spoken about this in previous ban reviews: [1] [2] [3]
--Chenzw  Talk  16:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've always taken the view that an honest change of heart and attitude would be relevant to lifting a long-term ban, but I see no evidence of this happening. Actually he's still convinced he was in the right and has no intention of changing. So we should continue the indefinite ban. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite aware some select policies and community standards do not translate across projects. However, I do believe this policy would apply to this instance. Therefore, I support unban with a ONESTRIKE threshold to reinstate an editing block while the community reconsiders the ban, in the event the editor does not make good faith edits or becomes abusive towards other editors as in the past. Should the ONESTRIKE be breached and the community ban be reinstated, I propose it should be extensive in length. Operator873talkconnect 16:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a onestrike unban is a reasonable position. If the user acts inappropriately, we can always ban again. If they become toxic to other users or something, then ban them again. If they just want to actually make some edits, why not? @Purplebackpack89: if you happen to get unbanned, I would suggest just keeping your head down and sticking to general edits. ~Junedude433talk 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify my position (and because it has been over a week with no more discussion and no conclusion), my support is that of en:WP:ROPE. That is, unblock them and see what happens. Another mistake and they're gone. As such, I support unban. ~Junedude433talk 20:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that we continue the indefinite ban echoing the concerns above that Purplebackpack89 has never accepted the reasons for the original ban and even in this latest request continues to be argumentative. --Gotanda (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we rarely have ban discussions, I'm wondering if we need to judge consensus on whether to keep the ban in place, or whether to remove it? In other words, if the result is about half/half, do we keep it or remove it? Vermont (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: I'm not entirely sure but i would say we need consensus to remove it, as typically the default is to keep things how they are. However most of the people who are voting to remove it do so on a one-strike basis, so i think the closing admin should go with that. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I commented in it so typically I can't close it, but if its roughly 50/50 then it would be no-consensus which means keep the status quo. -DJSasso (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban under one-strike. I think under the circumstances, they deserve another chance. Derpdart56 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time to wrap this up soon? It's been a while. Most likely this will be archived off the page soon. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The archiving would have been the close...but you have reset the archiving timer by commenting. Not all discussions get an official close, some just end up archived as no consensus is ever reached. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages

11:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Announcing: WikiProject: News!

Hi everyone; I would like to announce a new project of mine. WikiProject: News is a new news section for simple! I would like help, since I can't run it alone. I think there'll be 5 sections. Opinions and Interwiki news are the first two, since we'll have opinions about local matters, and interwiki news. We'll also be featuring a featured editor! Another section should be a place for humor and stuff. Thanks,--Derpdart56 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given any information about how people can get involved. My other two comments are that 1) opinions and humor are not news and 2) how will this be different from other attempts to have a news section? We had one earlier this year -- I was interviewed for it -- and it seems to have lasted for only one iteration. Other attempts have been similarly short-lived. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and not social media. The main need here is to build the article base. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think this wiki is big enough to need such a thing. you could try on the english wikipedia though, they have a lot of meta-projects, although i don't know that they'll take kindly to some of the other related stuff Computer Fizz (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a pet project... I guess I escalated too far. Sorry. --Derpdart56 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note, what about just the actual news, but in simple English? I know there are equivalents for some other languages. For instance, NHK writes a few articles every day in simple Japanese; I have been learning Japanese for some time now, and those simple news articles have been very helpful. The standard English Wikipedia sort of has a news section, so why not us? I think it would make sense to have it, as it's a good way to help direct people to new articles (provided it's regularly updated unlike the DYK section). ~Junedude433talk 18:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's within the scope of Wikinews, not Wikipedia, and I highly doubt there will be consensus to create a Simple English Wikinews. Vermont (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked to create one on the incubator awhile back and was told simple english projects probably won't be made for a while. And that, if i did want to create one, it should be put either on the simple english wikipedia (here) or on the english wikinews. i'd personally recommend the english wikinews route since you need people naturally geared towards news more than simplicity, and also that this wiki doesn't have a good track record with WikiProjects. if you want any help, i can write up a proposal to the english wikinews about it Computer Fizz (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a simple english tool on en wikinews would be wonderful! --Derpdart56 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax error in JSON.

Hi, I wanted to add * {{Tl|Incomplete}} under See also-section in a template doc but it says Syntax error in JSON. I have no idea why. Thx a lot for help! --W like wiki (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you got it. Likely an error in the code on the page. But that entire template was a duplicate recently created by someone who likely didn't know we already had it at another name. I have moved the other one to this name anyway so the error is moot now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Djsasso, Thx! --W like wiki (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attention new page patrollers

I invite you all to regularly check the move log for pages being moved from userspace to mainspace. I just noticed a couple of such pages that needed to be deleted as advertising. Other such articles might need "patrolling" for other things, and they don't show up under new pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hi all, Considering the events of the last few days, I would like this page protected due to constant LTA. Thanks. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages don't get protected. -DJSasso (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not in English

Do we have guidance for new page patrollers on articles with sources that we cannot read in scripts which are unfamiliar. Take the sources out? They are very un-user-friendly, and meaningless. It's not that I doubt the data or statements, it's rather that as a matter of principle readers ought to be able to read what sources say. See Uygur people. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely don't take them out. Sources are allowed to be in any language. In fact for many subjects they have to be in other languages. To require English sources would be a systemic bias that would be against Wikipedia's principles. The vast majority of sources can be translated if you use Chrome and click translate page. (granted the translation isn't perfect) -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Djsasso. There are many pages that it would be difficult to find an English language source. To rely on that would further bias. Improving the encyclopedia may at times require consulting a source not in English. Per WP:FOLLOW it is useful to consult en:WP:NONENG. "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed...As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." I for one have used non-English sources in several pages, simply because there is no English source available. Better to have a reliable source that some can verify than none at all. Desertborn (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we have guidance. However, there is a big difference between what the text says and what some of the sources say... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


We do not have a page on the Katyn massacre, and we should have. Who will do it? I am going to add material to the page on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because people today do not realise how that treaty allowed Poland to be invaded and split up between Germany and the Soviet Union. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not you? If you care about creating the page, then go for it and create it! Others will eventually help and clean it up, but remember: be bold! ~Junedude433talk 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you answer that question yourself. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: you, or no one else. I'm focused on adding articles about Kansas. If this massacre is something that interests you, then you should create it. I doubt someone else will create something that specific, and someone who cares about it as much as you should be the one to create it. Passionate people always make the best editors.~Junedude433talk 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter

Hello! I'm hoping to see if there's consensus for giving the abuse filter the ability to block accounts. I'd hope to use this specifically for anti-LTA filters, to temporarily block an IP/account of someone who triggers an applicable filter, awaiting review by a human administrator. It would make it so that LTA's no longer can keep testing filters until they get around them. I'm not sure on the procedure to enable that, however I know it requires community consensus before doing so, hence this thread. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definite support from me. It works well on other projects, as far as I know. I'm not aware of any problems with this upgrade. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this for a while and I have come across the conclusion that we need this feature considering how LTAs keep on attacking users. I am not sure how long it will take them to get around this new feature too but I think it will be able to prevent them for some time so I support enabling this.--BRP ever 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I would oppose this strongly. Blocking requires human decisions, even if only temporary. Not at all in favour of this. Too big a risk of false positives. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woukd you oppose the filter blocking non-autoconfirmed editors if they added something like "wikipedohomoidiots" or similar phrases? It's not like we're shoving random word soup into a filter; it'd be used specifically for LTAs on only phrases that LTAs would add into pages and in edit summaries. I don't see where there's a possibility of false positives, and if there are (say, an editor on another wiki who isn't autoconfirmed here who gets blocked by a filter for using that term in a question about it) it can be easily and quickly rectified unlike an LTA learning a filter, but to my knowledge there has not been an instance where the filter I'm referring to (88) had a false positive. Vermont (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose blocks period. Preventing edits is one thing, but blocks I am completely against. A block log can never be cleared the user can only be unblocked. Something I don't think you have fully grasped is that the more you try to push against LTAs the more they actually disrupt. They typically left this wiki alone after a tiny handful of edits until you went on a crusade against them. (Which is a fine thing to have tried to do. I just think it is the cause of most of the disruption currently. It is why RBI is a thing. The more you mention or go after the LTA the more attention they get so the more they do it. Just like a kid behaving badly.) Blocking will just cause them to find another avenue and it isn't worth the chance of false positives just to push them to another mode of disruption. And 88 may be fine, but once you have done it for one filter you have opened it up to using it for other filters. It is a slippery slope that simply isn't worth it. Just RBI their edits. Stop commenting about them, stop keeping lists, just RBI. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to estimate how many users would get blocked on average (per some time period) if this is done? It would be nice to know the estimated impact before I comment. Desertborn (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what filters are activated, although the one I mentioned above has had 191 hits since late August, most of which were in the last three weeks as I've updated it a bit. As far as I can tell, there have yet to be any false positives on it. Vermont (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of hits for that filter, and with zero false positives to date, I suppose the risk is low. On the other hand, the lowish number over several months means the value in automation over waiting for an admin is not huge, in terms of time. Also I am sure some will still find a way around the filters as well. But given that other languages seem to do this, as noted by Antandrus, there is precedent. Thus I offer weak support at this time. If started, it may be good to do a test run for a few weeks, and then re-evaluate before making it permanent. Desertborn (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any humorous essays or stuff like that?

If we don't, can we make some? --Derpdart56 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I'm more focused on bringing other articles up to snuff before I do anything else. ~Junedude433talk 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i've wanted to make a page on wikipedia with micro-purchases, but i get a more satirical vibe from this. i'll be excited to read your essay :) Computer Fizz (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much more helpful if you put your energy toward improving the main content (articles). Doing this kind of thing isn't really needed here, but would be better accepted if you had a track record of creating and/or improving articles (other than reverting vandalism, which I see you've done a lot of). --Auntof6 (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I disagree with that, I think reverting vandalism is a very important part to the encyclopedia, possibly more so than adding new information since the issue is becoming dated vs. completely unusable. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that reverting vandalism isn't important. We certainly have needed it a lot. I was saying that if someone is going to put time into writing, it would be more valuable in articles than in essays. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Computer Fizz: Go for it. I think the message should be "Wikipedia won't ever charge you, cuz' it's non profit." I was thinking more like What Wikipedia is not/outtakes on en wiki, except simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpdart56 (talkcontribs)

A question

Say if someone got rollback like 2 weeks ago. If they wanted to apply for admin, how long should they wait for? I was wondering.--Derpdart56 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for administrator typically have at least 3 to 6 months of experience on this wiki. Just anti-vandalism work alone will not suffice, though; candidates are expected to demonstrate good understanding of policy, which is typically shown through participation in community processes. Just to clarify, there is no "advancement path" from rollbacker to administrator. Chenzw  Talk  23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Chenzw mentiones is at a minimum 3-6 months. But others such as myself like to see over a year. And there is more than just vandalism fighting that is required. A candidate has to have a full grasp of how things work on the wiki and should create articles which show they understand what simple writing looks like. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can a page be protected please

This page has been vandalized, can it be semi-protected for like a week--Derpdart56 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only one IP has vandalised the page recently, the more appropriate action is to block the anonymous editor instead. Chenzw  Talk  16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: WelcomeBot

it's a bot that welcomes new users automatically. I think there hasn't been a solid team of greeters. Or give it to Cheznwbot, along with the QD upgrade. It could use very similar to Twinkle.--Derpdart56 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up quite a number of times over the years, and the consensus has been that welcoming new editors should be a task left to humans. Would you really want to be welcomed by a bot? Chenzw  Talk  16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) This has been discussed a number of times. (Do a search in the archives of this page) and it has been pretty much unanimously rejected as it is not a personal message and to many people it feels like spam. So instead we prefer editors to welcome people manually. Ideally with their own message rather than a template but the most important thing is that its done manually. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer a person doing the welcome, for all the points noted above. Desertborn (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't want users automatically welcomed, even by a human. New users should be welcomed only after we see that they are making constructive edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019

Please help translate to your language

Wikipedia Asian Month is back! We wish you all the best of luck for the contest. The basic guidelines of the contest can be found on your local page of Wikipedia Asian Month. For more information, refer to our Meta page for organizers.

Looking forward to meet the next ambassadors for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019!

For additional support for organizing offline event, contact our international team on wiki or on email. We would appreciate the translation of this message in the local language by volunteer translators. Thank you!

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, is the Simple English Wiki participating in this? I didn't see it listed on the list of wikis. ~Junedude433talk 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Junedude433: I mentioned this once to see if someone is interested but got no response so I didn't add us to the list.--BRP ever 06:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created 4 Japanese articles, so I'll participate.~Junedude433talk 17:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Junedude433: Apparently we aren't participating this year, but feel free to create articles anyway! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too late to add us to the list. We're not even a full week into November.~Junedude433talk 19:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have coordinators. We'd need a coordinator, or two coordinators if any coordinator is also contributing. I did it the last two years, but I can't this year. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know if this is this right place, so sorry if it isn't. I recently made an edit to simple wiki's page on lung cancer, I removed an obsolete source and replaced it with a current one and updated some statistics, but the changes got reverted for spam. I was wondering if someone could explain how that constitutes as spam? --12Dan21 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12Dan21, this is the right place. Masumrezarock100 should not have reverted that edit. It is not spam, and I have put the article back to your edit. Thank you for updating the content. I'm going to leave a template on your talk page with some helpful links to help you feel more comfortable editing here. If you have any questions or need help you can ask here, on my talk page, or the talk pages of other experienced editors and administrators. Happy editing, Vermont (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont Thank you!--12Dan21 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont and 12Dan21: I apologise for reverting the edit. I am still new to this. Sorry again. Masumrezarock100 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No issue; just please try to be more careful in the future and WP:AGF. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Masumrezarock100: all good --12Dan21 (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. Can a sysop import the following?

en:Template:S-line/SMRT left/Thomson-East Coast
en:Template:S-line/SMRT right/Thomson-East Coast
en:Template:S-line/SMRT left/Cross Island
en:Template:S-line/SMRT right/Cross Island
en:Template:S-line/SMRT left/Circle
en:Module:Adjacent stations (together with its connected pages)

I plan to expand some articles and simple's templates are outdated. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can do it. You can update them as well with attribution comments in the future if you choose as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page idea

Could we get a simplified version of the policy on COI edits on en-wiki? It could be a good idea. --Derpdart56 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term movie instead of film -- when/where was this decided?

A user is asking about our practice of using the term movie instead of film. Specifically, he wants to know if this was discussed, and where he can see the discussion. It was before my time here, so I don't know. Can anyone help? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know, I would say in my opinion "movie" is simpler. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Derpdart56: Thanks, but if you don't know, then you can't help here. I'm not looking for opinions. I'm looking for documentation. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I did some digging, and found this archive, where some users debated about this. A consensus was reached, saying film is more standard due to WP:MOS. But, the MoS says movie is standard, so go with that. Hope that helps. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am that user and feel quite strongly that the simple term 'film' (the term used in the UK and beyond) should be allowed for british films alonside the term 'movie' for US movies. There are lots of examples where banning the word 'film' would make an article more confusing. Film noir comes to mind. The rules I am used to on the complex english wikipedia is that it is important to be consistent on a page. For example if a page is in 'American English' you would expect 'color' and' 'movie. If the page is in British or Autralian or Indian English you would expect 'colour' and 'film'. I fail to see why 'film' is considered a 'complex' word (unless one is American). Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian R Hunter: Technically, both are right. It's confusing, MoS says movie, Archives say film. Use both. If needed, use redirects. I'm not saying that either should be banned. --Derpdart56 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, we don't completely ban the word film. We just use movie when talking about a motion picture. In the US, we also use the term film, so it's not just a case of different versions of English. In any case, this section is not a discussion of what should be used, just a request for information about where we decided to use one term instead of another. I'm changing the title to make that clear. Feel free to start a discussion about changing our practice, however. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been decided on this page multiple times just look through the archives. But really the decision more comes down to the fact that one of our core principles is to always use the word with less meanings. Movies vs. Films isn't unique. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Film is a complex word because it has multiple meanings. We avoid words with multiple meanings when there are options with less meanings. While we do follow some of ENGVAR here on simple wiki such as color vs colour. We don't slave to it like en.wiki does. We use the simpler of the two words. To you as a native English speaker film might seem easy to understand. But that is not so for our target audience of non-english speakers. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through en.wiki.

I was searching through the LTA list on en.wiki. Apparently, a known vandal used the madeup word "eolgi" to vandalize. --Derpdart56 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing: Wikiproject: Video Game Hardware

I noticed a lot of articles are missing about video game hardware! Let's fix this! I aim to increase the quality of these articles and create new ones. I hope you guys join me! Page here. --Derpdart56 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, how many projects have you even made so far? Computer Fizz (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is not necessary to create a project for everything you want to work on. WikiProjects here have a poor track record. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia's been seeing some drama hasn't it

--DimensionShifter (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to saome extent, thats normal, and nothing to worry about. Most of us are here for the content, and not for the drama...--Eptalon (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film or Movie or both - a new debate

I have recently joined 'simple.wikipedia' having been a long term editor on the en.wikipedia. I like using simple English and have striven for easy-to-read content on articles I have edited. I have been moving pages over to this wikipedia, simplyfying as much as possible. One issue that has impacted me has been a perceived need to change all mention of the word 'film' to 'movie' on any page that mentions a motion picture.

My view is that both terms should be acceptable on simple.wikipedia. The choice depending on context. Movies in Britain are almost always refered to as 'films', and it is common in other countries too. There is no confusion with other meanings of the word 'film' due to the context. In Britain there are 'film awards' given to 'films'; it seems very odd to have a rule that says the wikipedia page should refer to these as 'movies' rather than films.

My proposed 'rules':

  • Film is a simple word.
  • Movie is a simple word.
  • If due to context, a reader might be confused over the meaning of the word 'film' then the word 'movie' should be used instead.
  • If an article is about a British film, the word 'film' should be consistently used and the page use UK English spellings.
  • If an article is about a US movie, the word 'movie' should be consistently used and the page use US English spellings.
  • Articles should not mix use of the words unless the page is describing the two uses.
  • US awards are for 'movies', even when it is a British film.
  • UK awards are for 'films', even when it is an US movie.

Please feel free to disagree. I would like this debate to result in a clearly visible enforceable policy rule. Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose These rules are too complex in and of themselves. I think you have probably misunderstood a lot of why we do what we do. Simple doesn't just mean simple to English speaking readers. We are writing for non-native English speakers. We are less concerned here about English variations than we are about using the simplest word. One we always use the word with less meanings, this doesn't just go for movies or films, this is in every instance of every word. It is one of the core tenants of Simple English. Secondly in other languages the word movie is closer to what is used in other languages than film is, making it simpler for people learning English to understand than film. Film is very ambiguous and we can't expect non-native speakers to always understand the context of the word being used. And a lesser reason is that movie is often simpler for children to understand than film, and children are our secondary audience to non-native speakers. This topic seems to get discussed every time a new editor comes here that wants to try to impose en.wiki style guidelines to our wiki. Just go through the archives this has been talked about a lot. Using film in some places and movies in other places is the definition of not simple. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of your arguement would lead onto a standardised spelling too. It is simpler to have a single spelling than multiple spellings (color colour etc.) of the same word. Is this policy on simple.wikipedia? -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No we haven't standardized on a single spelling because there would be no end of arguments for that, consensus would never be achieved. There would always be new editors showing up and changing words to their preferred version and we don't have the editor numbers to keep up with preventing that. (we have around 20 active regular editors) So we focus more on simpleness of words which is easier to enforce. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wiktionary, film has several other meanings (originally: a thin layer of material); movie as form moving picture only has one meaning. You are free to use film, if you think you must; but when talking about the stuff you watch at the cinema (hopefully), then other editors may eventually replace the term by movie. Practicality is what counts here, not linguistic purism; Our audience is those learning English, and those having problems with the complexities of the regular English wikipedia. Yes, inflammable means catches fire easily; yet, emergency services talk about flammable substances (to not confuse people). Are we evil, when we try to do the same? --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on this reasoning. There are fewer definitions for "movie" than there are "film." There could be more potential for confusion. I don't think this is a big issue regardless though.~Junedude433talk 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Film" is the standard word in British English for what American English calls a movie. There's no doubt about that, and it is not ambiguous. Context in language determines meaning: many words do have more than one possible meaning. The word 'movie' sticks out like a sore thumb in a page which is otherwise in British English. We should "go with En wiki" as we do in many other debates. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QD criteria update maybe?

I think A4 should be moved to the general section. This could be used for user pages that are too niche for G11, but don't fit a specific guideline. --Derpdart56 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A4 is about notability. Notability only applies to articles so wouldn't make sense to be in general as general applies to all namespaces. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we should overhaul our QD criteria sometime, but i don't know abotu this specific thing (i.e. why would a userpage have to be 'notable' ? ) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Although the initial unban section has been archived, I wanted to note that I have changed my opinion in favor of maintaining the ban due to recent events on the English Wikipedia. Their ArbCom candidacy questions for The Rambling Man over there evidently show that they have not changed since 2011, still holding a grudge against the editor who was involved in a lot of the initial conflict. Vermont (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How this is relevant if the discussion is closed? I have worked out my vote for if it opens again, but i thought the discussion was closed... Computer Fizz (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was just making it clear for people that maybe have been concerned. Its pretty much irrelevant anyway, as there was no consensus to unban even before he changed his vote. There definitely isn't now that he has. It is also quite successfully shows that the "People change over that long a time" arguments were not true as clearly he hadn't since he is still holding the grudge. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I tell if it's a test page or vandalism?

I've been here a little while. But how do I tell the difference between a test page and vandalism?--Derpdart56 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Derpdart56: Per WP:AGF unless it's super obviously vandalism you should assume it's a test page. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Test page usually means the content is just and edit where one of the buttons on the top edit box were pressed. Or something like "hi". Either way it doesn't matter use what you feel is appropriate and the admin deleting will use the appropriate one if its not. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Sorry if this is something I can do myself, but I can't find the instructions. Requested move redirects here, so can someone please move my draft at User_talk:Gotanda/Drafts/Pramoedya to Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)  Done--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Maintenance

Wikipedia:Maintenance is the most linked to non-existing page, and it is in the project name space. Do we have an equivalent page here that all of those links should be directed to, or is there any other reason why it doesn't exist? Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 11:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could redirect it to Category:Wikipedia backlog? Vermont (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is the best option. On en.wiki there is a long article about the different types of maintenance work, but I think this is covered elsewhere over here and so isn't necessary. Would you be happy for me to create a redirect then? Milo, Talk, Contribs 16:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually do cross-namespace redirects. Maybe it could be a soft redirect to the enwiki page. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that could work too - would an admin be happy to do whatever they think works best? Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 08:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect created. It didn't require an admin to do that, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I was wary of doing it since there seems to be some discussion as to which would be best (see below) Milo, Talk, Contribs 10:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That page gives information on English Wikipedia processes, noticeboards, etc. A lot of it doesn't apply here. Being that Category:Wikipedia Backlog is all the maintenance categories, would that not be better suited? Vermont (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it should be redirected to Category:Wikipedia maintenance if anywhere because Vermont is right, people here aren't looking for en.wikis processes which don't exist here. Personally I would just go find where is linking to it and remove the links as it isn't really all that necessary here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (and I changed it) seems a no-brainer... but feel free to change/improve further -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should note as well that I removed the link on a single template which accounted for pretty much all the links to it anyway. So we are probably good now. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]