Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 134

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank You

Thank you, but, check this! Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macdonald-ross Yea, I always found English hard TBH. In class in reading comprehension tests I always take the longest (~3 hours). Thanks for the note! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Introducing Wikiproject Article for Creation

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

Outcome: Proposal rejected . No active users available to take interest in it and for technical reasons because it is small wiki.KP (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Proposal- We should bring a new system, called article for creation system as we have in English Wikipedia. Why, we should do this, see if an IP user has created an article which is against rules of Wikipedia policy, but we don't when it has created, or we did speedly deletion on that article but user wants more time, to accomodate this I want to propose this system. You can get at [1]. Comments? this system will be for non-confirmed or IP users. Please ping me when any discussion is needed. KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • Weak oppose While I think this could be helpful for stopping vandalism, we do have a great QD system here where articles get deleted quickly if they are identified as complete vandalism or test pages. These articles seem to get identified pretty quickly (usually less than 12hrs after article creation).
    However, there are articles that unregistered/non-confirmed users make here that are genuinely ok.
    There are only 50-60 articles per day (including redirects) made here, which is quite a manageable number, but 50 articles (including redirects) were made on the English Wikipedia in the last hour or so.
    Therefore, I don't think there would be a need for this system here right now. Belwine💬📜 12:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose We simply do not have enough active users to manage such a system. --IWI (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I accept that. I don't how much active users we have now.KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe we have 30-40 active users? I was doing some talk page stalking the other day and I saw something saying that... Someone can fact-check me... Belwine💬📜 13:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose --Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose With the majority of our page creators are IP, the workload cannot be imagined. We also have some logged in editors who uses bots (unauthorized) to run pages as IPs. Workload is clearly way too much. In addition, if I recall correctly, AFC systems in different Wikipedias are first implemented to allow projects to remove IP creating pages (like as a compromise solution to the foundation - like a deal with them). Per IWI, we truly don't have enough people here to handle. Suggestion: What we can do however is to have a link to here / set up a help desk for newbies to ask questions, or I will rather when we patrol pages, do tell the creator how to improve etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are correct.KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  • May be a very nice system that works well for EnWp. This wiki is a lot smaller. Many users which are new or are unregistered also contribute here. Yes, while there's some vandalism/graffitti from these users, I don't think it is enough to warrant the overhead this system brings. I also want to note that many of the new or unregistered users do good contributions. To me, this is a lot of overhead, with little to no benefit.--Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • TTP1233, you've been editing here only a couple of weeks. That may not be enough time to understand how Simple English Wikipedia is different from other Wikipedias. As Eptalon said, this wiki is much smaller. We don't have as much infrastructure here, and that's partly on purpose, to keep things simple and to prevent overworking our smaller group of editors.
    You proposed this as a WikiProject. Here WikiProjects are hosted in userspace and are unofficial. Consequently, they have no authority over processes or anything else. If you'd like to know more about how SEW is different, you can see this list I put together. It's not a policy or guideline, just a list that some people have found helpful. Feel free to ask (on my talk page) any questions you have about anything on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that.KP (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

I had started a discussion of a possible new RFD criterion above, hope there will be some comments. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do note that there is a discussion taking place here, we need to ascertain the neutrality of the article. @Eptalon: tried to make it more neutral but there are some editors who doesn't agree and further reverted. Pinging also @Macdonald-ross: too. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed on uncategorized pages

There are over 250 pages currently listed at Special:UncategorizedPages. Anyone who feels confident in their categorizing skills might want to help clear them. It would be appreciated if you fully categorize a page, rather than putting it in only one category just to get it out of the list. If you'd like input on how to do that, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On it. --IWI (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what's this "hotcat" that I keep hearing about? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Darkfrog24: It's a gadget you will find in My Settings > Gadgets that makes adding categories to pages easier. --IWI (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Darkfrog24: Yes, much easier. I highly recommend it. It lets you add/change/remove categories right in the area where the categories are shown on a page. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6: Yeah, I don't think I could edit without it, ha. --IWI (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Darkfrog24: Just be careful to check before you save. HotCat uses autocomplete, so you could end up with a different category than you intended. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I noticed some persnickitiness. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say Tableau vivant is a bit of a stumper. So far I put "photography" and "performing arts" but it does seem pretty unique.
Articles whose categories could be discussed:
- Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, cut 'em in half! Great job everyone! Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realised Hot Cat, had nothing to do with cute cats, after finding out it was a gadget! I will try and help categorize these pages, with Hot Cat of course! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HUZZAH! And if you want cute cats, there is always YouTube. I also recommend "Koala fights." Remember to put the sound on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm stumped on Knick knack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About a section in front page

Hello, as we use pages here rather than articles, can someone tell me why in the front page we still put "Selected article", is there any reason I don't know. If not can we just use "Selected page"? Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We use both terms here. An article is only one type of page. For the "selected article" it's always an article, so the term is appropriate. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I see, but why the section headings in articles we put related pages in lieu of see also but we don't use related article. I am trying to understand the consistency here. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the same heading is used in articles and non-articles for consistency. So when you see "Related pages" on template documentation for example they are not articles. Page=Any namespace. Article=mainspace. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thanks for explanation @Djsasso Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notifying the community on behalf of nominator, there is a propose GA demotion that is discussed here, this is to follow #4 in the instructions. All community members is welcomed to comment on the nomination. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging two image guides

Is anybody opposed to merging Help:Images and Help:How to use images? Naddruf (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merged into Help:Images. Naddruf (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British English or American English

And if the article isn't connected to England or America, then the first contributor gets to pick whatever they happen to prefer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is no type of English connected to the topic then yes. Though there are many types of English aside from US and GB, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, India, Singapore, South Africa, etc. --IWI (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to say so: This wiki is also for people learning English. So: use whatever you feel most comfortable with, and for that word stick to that spelling in the article. As pointed out: South Africa, Belize, Hong Kong, Liberia (...) all have English as a langugage that is commonly spoken, if not official. To say that aricles about Liberia should only use the Liberian variant of English, would probably be nit-picking...--Eptalon (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say that since this is Simple English, our mandate is to use Simple English. If any form of English meets Simple English requirements let's use it, if it doesn't don't use it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon: Well, think about who is most likely to read Nigeria-related topics. Nigerians. And what type of English will they be learning? Nigerian English. --IWI (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This shows our audience, just some food for thought. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed with Template:Uw-rfd (not urgent)

I noticed that this template had the year 2020 hardcoded in it for constructing the name of an RFD discussion page. I tried a couple of things to make the year variable, but they didn't do the trick. For now, I have hardcoded 2021 instead, but it would be better to have the year variable so that the template always inserts the current year. Could someone who understands that coding better than I do take a look and fix it? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure it isn't working? The current version uses {{CURRENTYEAR}}, and it appears to be working on the test page: Template:Uw-rfd/testcases. Naddruf (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The addition of {{CURRENTYEAR}} seems to have done it, I also separately added safesubst so that the year is dependent on when the template was substituted onto the page, rather than the year when the template message is viewed. Chenzw  Talk  04:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like you changed {{CURRENTYEAR}} into 2021, am I wrong? Naddruf (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops, fixed for sure now. Chenzw  Talk  04:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Chenzw, I think the safesubst might have done it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naddruf: The way I left it, it would work for this year, but not for future years without further changes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Active user

I need to know how many active users are there. Give me a list for my contact to them as well.KP (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TTP1233: For what reason do you need to contact active users? --IWI (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment:, any help or patrolling or reporting cases may be. Just if needed i will contact to them as well. I know you, Belwine, Eptalon, 2 others. That's why I asked here.KP (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TTP1233: Well we have Special:ActiveUsers, but that lists a lot of users. You can narrow it down by displaying only admins, patrollers, and rollbackers like this. --IWI (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yikes, I've been more active than I thought... Belwine💬📜 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have less than 30 active users (actually active, not 1 edit in 30 days active the above list uses). But generally you don't need to contact "active users". If its vandalism, put it on WP:VIP. If its a general question you have put it on this page. -Djsasso (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+supressredirect for rollbackers

Hello, I am seeing more page move vandalism, including a bout this morning, it will be easier for the cleanup if rollbackers can supress redirect (i.e. a vandal move page A to nonsense page name B, he/she can revert and then without leaving the redirect from page B to page A). This will aid in clean-up, I know is currently a sysop level access, so there might be some arguments that why not flag down any sysop or GR (who by global rights policy, can use), but I think if we can trust them with rollback, we can with this and if anyone misuse, it can be easily removed and the redirect can be reinstated without much trouble. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just tag the redirect with a QD. There was a discussion on this a couple months back and consensus was that non-admins shouldn't have it. -Djsasso (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I must have missed that, thanks @Djsasso for pointing it out. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict) Was discussed very recently, as Djsasso states; I don't imagine this is likely to change. The idea was that if you're experienced enough to be trusted with supressredirect, then you are experienced enough to be trusted with other admin tools, at least on this wiki. --IWI (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see the discussion, which happened in July 2020; actual vote ishere--Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, thanks. I agree to the points stated in the discussion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20 years of Wikipedia

A interesting accomplishment...Derpdart56 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't we do something to celebrate, like a logo / a banner on front page. Major wikis like en/zh have them. I don't mean the central notice but a dedicated message? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that this wiki was founded somewhere around September 2001, so something to consider for later this year indeed. --IWI (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say Sept isn't the best, it's 20 years after 911 attacks, I would rather do it on like Aug with Sep left to remember the tragedy.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that is when this wiki was founded - Sept 2001. I have to find the diff, but former admin Angela gave exact dates. --IWI (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was created on November 17, 2001 as per Simple Wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict) Just a concern about the sensitivity, like if the date was very close, it might leave a bad taste in readers like we are celebrating in the midst of a remembrance. I am just a little worried about how the perception will be. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then Nov will be perfectly fine :D Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict) @Djsasso: But that can't be, per what Angela provides here. She states 18 September 2001. --IWI (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could be vandalism then. -Djsasso (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So let's start on 18 Sep, 1 week from 11 should be sensitive enough. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right when we think we have this nailed down... Along came a spider. I was thinking to myself: the earliest date of a SEWP article certainly would be saved in the database when they migrated everything, right? So I went over to quarry and ran me a little SQL query. Shockingly enough, Swedish Academy's earliest edit is May 18, 2001. Djsasso have any thoughts here? Would this potentially change the "born on" date? Operator873talkconnect 06:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is because the article was imported from the English Wikipedia. Therefore, both English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia have the same creation date. Saroj Uprety (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah article edit dates are unreliable because of importing. -Djsasso (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, imported dates aren't reliable, they will use the date for the version in English as the date. So it's still 18 Sep. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration on Simple Wikipedia

Recently, this wiki has expanded largely over the last year, with more users, pages, and projects. Therefore, I am proposing an Arbitration system, like other major WMF wikis, mainly the English Wikipedia. There have been several examples on small wikis of why we need an arbitration system, although none on simplewiki yet. I am proposing either a 5 member Arbitration Committee, or an administrative panel (see below for differences), to solve disputes, to decide arguments on project creation, basically, anything that is a major issue on the Simple Wikipedia that cannot be solved by admins, or regular users. They will be the last resort, if unblock requests have been declined, or if a permanent ban on the user is requested.

These are just some of the issues an ArbCom or an administrative panel (name pending), and see my userpage here on Simple Wikipedia if you have private questions/comments. Thank you, and I hope you consider this request. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. This proposal may be closed by an ideally uninvolved Wikipedia bureaucrat.
  2. Please remember all votes should express an argument with them, including, but not limited to, referring to the argument(s) expressed in the proposal(s) or which which have been made by other users.
  3. Proposals 1 and 2 may pass together, but this is not required.
  4. Proposal 2 is a measure to be passed only until this wiki gains editors.

Proposal 1: Create an Arbitration Committee

Rationale: An ArbCom can oversee any disputes about blocks/bans on-wiki, major project creations, and other large-scale disputes, conflicts, and more.


  1. Strong support Per proposal. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Oppose - Proposal 1, Arbcom commitee, is not needed as we don't usually have issues so severe. Bans are usually discussed here, and other discussions involving blocks are here and on WP:AN. I think making an ArbCom would be a lot of hassle for something that wouldn't be used very often. Belwine💬📜 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry, but I don't see a need for this. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose we simply do not need an arbcomm, given that we have roughly 30 active editors per month. Disputes can easily be resolved by the community. --IWI (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose without prejudice. If conditions on the Simple English Wikipedia change such that there are problems that an ArbCom could solve, we can always make one then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. This wiki is nowhere near large enough compared to other wikis with an Arbitration Committee. In addition, this seems like a solution looking for a problem. I don't see anything here that an Arbitration Committee would solve, just "we should have one". Naleksuh (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Not needed. Operator873talkconnect 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose --Saroj Uprety (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose - Uninvolved crats would serve as this function if needed. We are way too small for one. -Djsasso (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • The English Wikipedia is a very large wiki. There are many editors, and conflicts are frequent. We are a small wiki, there are few active editors. I'ds guess about a third of the active edtors are admins, including Crats, Checkusers, and Oversighters (yes, one of the differences of this wiki: CU/OS/Crat require adminship). Open conflicts are almost non-existent; appeals to blocks are handled as an onwiki request, or a mail to an admin mailing list. Sorry to say so: The system we currently have works well, and in my opinion we do not need to burden ourself with a set of rules, for an additional system. If there really is an issue finding an uninvolved admin or crat is easy. So suppose we go for the solution of defining an arbcom, what's the benefit?- I see a big increase iun complexity/new procedures/rules, but I don't see a benefit that would make this extra complexity worthwile. --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please remove the 'neutral/abstain' section. We don't have neutral votes. You are either in favor of something, or you are against it, or you are commenting on it. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal 2: Create an administrative panel

Rationale: Administrators and bureaucrats have the community's trust, and can maintain issues without outside help.



  1. Oppose - We don't need this system, we already have admins who we can speak to if we need assistance. Belwine💬📜 21:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose - it's unclear what this actually would be, therefore I wouldn't even know what I am supporting and am opposing procedurally. It sounds like a different name for "arbcomm" from what I gather. In any case, the status quo works fine. --IWI (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose per my statement below --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Arbitrators should be elected, not appointed. In addition arbitration of any type here is completely unnecessary. Naleksuh (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Not needed. Operator873talkconnect 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Not needed. Admins already talk to each other to discuss issues as needed. -Djsasso (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose without prejudice. No one has pointed to a problem that this measure would solve. If that changes, we can always revisit this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


...and what happened? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: What do you mean by "Administrative Panel" I don't understand what you are saying --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I was a little confused too. I think BlackWidowMovie means a selected panel of admins. However, all the admins and bureaucrats (and checkusers and oversighters) do have the community's trust, they got voted in by the community... Belwine💬📜 22:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @つがる and Belwine: A selected panel of 5 admins, extremely experienced, dedicated to arbitrating this wiki like I said above. Admins will not be elected by the community, but rather chose internally. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that all admins here are extremely experienced. Quite a lot of them have been here for a long time (e.g. Auntof6, Chenzw, Djsasso, Eptalon, Macdonald-ross, Peterdownunder - these are all admins that have been here for 8-12 years now and have a lot of experience here! That is just to name a few...) and communicate with each other. I don't see need for a new system, this one is working fine... Belwine💬📜 22:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but this plan doesn't sound good. Without community consensus, this won't be fair. If users have concerns about admins/crats, then how will they be voiced out? I don't want to sound like I'm trying to cause havoc to your plans, nor am I trying to be aggressive in response to your plans. Thanks. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can only re-iterate: Adminship here means the trust of the community; without the community trusting you, you won't become admin. Given that we are probably the Wiki with the highest admin ratio, finding an uninvolved admin is pretty easy. Note also, that the other functions we have (bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter) require adminship. Given what you ask, this role would probably be the 'advanced flags' mentioned before. Let me spell this out for you: This wiki is controversial, there have been three attempts at closing it (3 (2018), 2 (2008/2009), 1 (2007)). In the last proposal, 35 people were in favor of closure, 90 were opposed to it. One of the 'selling points' of this wiki is that we try to avoid over-regulation. Each rule/procedure adds complexity; if there's no large payoff, adding the rule/procedure usually has no benefit. So please take the time to familarize yourself with this wiki and its values,try adding or improving content. When we need a new system to handle disagreements between editors, we will add it. At the moment, I think we don't.--Eptalon (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of rights request

Please note: a request for removal of rights has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship/Eptalon. Your feedback is welcome. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic translation

I've just noticed that Hindi wiki has this amazing automatic translation into English! Ooo... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Macdonald-ross Is it the google translate on the top of the bar, for me I do see the auto translate on several other wikis using Chrome browser. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I see it is Google translate. I had not seen it before. It is a remarkably good translation if it is not human-aided. But I imagine it does need to be tweaked by a bilingual programmer. It does have glitches. Whatever, it's an event for me. I've not tried other languages yet. Yes, I'm using Google Chrome. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's machine translation but I think they used some algorithms to perfect it, @Macdonald-ross Our local content translation tool default is also google translate. I suspect our translations also does help in some degree on how google works. Basically for supported languages, the tab will appear, I also used this feature to determine pages on other wikis are they spam or not in my cross-wiki work and thus far, it's accurate. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Patrolling new pages

Recently there have been many new pages which have not been patrolled. It is an important function, and the first permission users get when we know they are competent. Well, it's a necessary job, too, because otherwise it is left to admins who have plenty other things to look after. Pages slip off the New Pages lists all too quickly, especially when we have school groups doing projects. Look back and see what a lot of pages have gone by unpatrolled. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will say that for here some users are granted patroller as their pages do not need further patrol, so they didn't sign up for patrolling duties. I see we have some new users who want to do patrolling, and requested patroller but they didn't got it due to insufficent page creations. With this, if this is really an issue, why not we unbundle autopatrol from patrol (i.e. patrol group granted to those who want to patrol; autopatrol granted to those who do not need to be patrolled). I don't think asking all patrollers to do patrolling is fair when the purpose they are granted is just to autopatrol their creations though. However, if those who ask to do patrolling and was granted, yes, they should be more active in patrolling. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, it seems that Mac is saying admins have a lot of things to look after, is there an admin shortage? If yes, we should be nominating people for the mop. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a shortage of not just admins, but users in general on this wiki (about 30 monthly active users and a little over 10 fully active admins). Whenever I clean up a new page, I do mark them as partolled, though I admit it isn't a job I go out of my way to do. I am neutral to the unbundling of autopatrol, but I think we need more patrollers and not fewer, so I think taking away the right from users is the opposite of what we should be doing if we want more articles to be patrolled. --IWI (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean if the concern is content creation, why not we set up a group to allow patrol only (w/o autopatrol). If we unbundle, all existing patrollers can be granted both autopatrol and patroller (the exclusive group). That said, if there is really an issue, if no, I prefer the status quo ante of course. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a need for unbundling patrol and autopatrol. If you know what a good article looks like (patrol) then you should be able to write good articles (autopatrol) Belwine💬📜 12:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I'm neutral to the idea, it just sounds like another hat for the hat collectors (and one easier to achieve, so to speak). This wiki already has an issue with enwiki users arriving to collect their "hats" and leave. --IWI (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict) I mean, now Mac is saying patrollers aren't active enough, but my point in above is that not all patrollers are asking for the right to patrol articles, so if it's really a problem, that is a solution. @Belwine This is what some wiki do, like en and some other projects. Others like zh did bundle together for the purpose you said. However, there is a separate autopatrol group for zh too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The patrol group is intentionally difficult to be granted to ward of hat collectors. Unbundling these would make the new "patrol" group a hat collector's dream, as the bar would be fairly low. --IWI (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say, if there are a lack of people doing patrolling, we don't mind giving those who show some competency in QD/RFD as well as content policy the patrol right. I mean only if there is a lack of people. Well with time limited rights, we can say grant for 1 week / month and if they don't come back, we don't extend. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Patrolling requires knowledge of the local wiki and writing in Simple English. A lot of people just treat it as looking for vandalism on new pages which is not at all the purpose of why we do it on this wiki, although obviously it is part of it. I don't really think there is as big an issue as Macdonald-ross does as in the past we have typically suggested people do actual creating of articles instead of patrolling because it was higher priority. One of the reasons the two were bundled together originally was that we only ever wanted the autopatrol flag so that people skimming the list could quickly see what to ignore. The other flag came along with it so that people with it could mark if needed, but it had been intended that no one ever actually go through marking them manually. Granted opinions change, I still think they definitely should not be unbundled. -Djsasso (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New WikiProject

Hello. I have created a new Wikiproject, being WikiProject:Soccer in North America. It will be a WikiProject for anything related to soccer in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. ShadowBallX (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With regards to recent events, I am thinking it is clearly hard on this community to deal with any users who have some unhappiness with some admins and then proceeds to request for de-adminship. While this current case is supported by 2 community members, we can expect more such cases. Some may be frivolous and time-draining, but there can be cases where it's hard to close per WP:SNOW. I am thinking we need to tighten the criterion for starting de-adminship, ideally it can be something like the nominator needs to be able to run for adminship per WP:CFA. Very new users who have run-ins with admins here without knowing the culture well here can make administering this wiki impossible if we entertain such requests. Note: this isn't pertaining to this request only, but in general policy change to prevent any possible disruption. I haven't have time to look deep into this current case but there are suggestions in the oppose column that this is a very new user making such requests w/o understanding our culture (see the vote by Sro23) etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't agree with this. Admins are answerable to the community, and any member of the community should be permitted to start a discussion to remove tools if they feel necessary, and it is then up to the community to decide. If a user provides a valid reason, a SNOW close can't happen and the request can be considered valid. Of course, requesting deadminship with no valid reason would be closed per SNOW. I will also add that these are very uncommon and have not happened very many times in the history of this wiki, so I'm not sure why we should expect many more of these cases. --IWI (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administrators are indeed answerable to the community, however the differences in the technical balance of power cannot be denied. My fear is that, barring obvious vandalism, the moment we start talking about "requesting for de-adminship" and "disruption" in the same sentence may well also be the start to a subtle shift to the practice of suppressing dissenting voices. Also, groupthink can be a serious problem and I think we should value the opinions of new members to the community. Chenzw  Talk  15:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Chenzw puts it much more eloquently than I did. Nobody should be barred from bringing concerns to the community just because we feel they are not part of our "group"; that doesn't seem like how we should be doing things. Often an outside perspective is helpful due to groupthink, echo chambers etc. --IWI (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with IWI and Chenzw. I don't think more rules are necessary, because there may be exceptional cases where it is needed. Naddruf (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Replies@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I am now defining the community in this proposal, it will be not that desired if there are users who had their 1st / 2nd edit here to get into a quarrel with admins and then start the de-adminship process. The reason why I am stating this is that the current deadminship is really unexpected and I don't want to see someone unhappy with a single action and then start a draining process. This is a preceedence already, which if I search the archives, I cannot find when the last round. For concerns about the community by outsiders, we can do it in here, or AN, or talkpage, there isn't a need for someone to directly escalate to deadminship. I will say that we as a community decides who our admins are, or how they act, the community is important in this case. There isn't anyway to escape from groupthink or echo chambers as we are so small and if our consensus is to do something, it should be respected by other communities. This is what I would like to portray. @Chenzw: Sure, I get your point, we shouldn't be supressing voices. I am aware we had to listen to new users, but not entirely new users who do not have any good insight on how our wiki works and then complaining straight to deadminship. What I actually is proposing is that there should be some discussion before such a major vote took place. For wikis with deadminship process, like commons or Chinese Wikipedia, they require users to get consensus on village pumps before starting a vote. The issue should be clear cut and there is significant community support for the vote to be started. This will prevent SNOW deadminship, disruption and etc which can be draining in resources. I am not asking for supression of voices, my motive in starting this thread is to explore how disputes between editors and admins can be better addressed. Deadminship like Checkuser should be a last resort, not as the first occasion in resolving such dissent. I will say that by having it discussed on ST, it will provides more inputs and etc. Dissent cannot be supressed anyway, and supressing will be futile as users can technically start a RFC on meta on individual projects policies and there are cases where the entire wiki admin team is questioned, such as the current Croatian Wikipedia issues. TLDR, what I mean is that why not we discuss first, rather than to start a vote which by itself is very disturbing to the admin in place and draining. If we can talk it out, why not we talk it out. Seek opinions on the whole community here will be at least the lesser evil than starting a vote to remove someone permissions. Of course, if there are egregious situations, we can of course get a clear consensus to start a vote and the vote will likely be successful. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. The thing is, zhwiki and commons are very large wikis. Our wiki is significantly smaller than those, and so having a vote on whether to have a vote would just be the same as having the vote anyway, if that makes sense. Processes are always significantly simplified here and this is an example. --IWI (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just wish to see more discussion before we step into this binary yes/no vote. If we can resolve disputes via discussion, and the admin agrees to do certain things, we do not need to end up into this hard vote. If you get what I mean. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it happens that regular users think an issue is a no-brainer then they're entitled to vote right away. They are quite capable of making their own decisions. It's not sensible to drag things out artificially. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True too. Just I felt that the process might have some room for improvement, if it deemed there isn't a need, I am fine with it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the first RfdA since 2009. I don't see a need to change anything unless it becomes a real problem.
Also, as one of the users who supported the RfdA, I personally can't say that I would like to have prevented it from being filed. Granted, this may be biased statement, however it's important to have opinions from all editors, which is what allowing these requests captures. Even if it is unsucessful it's not the end of the world, and it's not like anything that failed means it shouldn't have existed in the first place.
But either eway, I don't see a need to change who can create RfdAs at this time. This is the first RfdA in 12 years so it's safe to say they are pretty rare occurances. Naleksuh (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does of course not mean that if we see things to improve, that we shouldn't address them. For example: the request you linked to was a deadminship for inactivity. Since then (and I think also in response to the request you linked), we have since changed our policy, so that admins need a certain minimal level of activity to keep their tools.--Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for clarity that isn't the most recent. We had a couple more the year after that which would be more applicable to this situation as they weren't for inactivity. -Djsasso (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Djsasso: Can you link it? My method was going onto WP:RFP and Ctrl+F'ing the history for "removal of rights". So it might not have listed any where they removed the autogenerated summary. Naleksuh (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both are linked on here Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive5. Bluegoblin and Kennedy. -Djsasso (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual Event

Wikimania's logo.

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open Call

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Normally, we would delete bad articles created by socks. However, my question is should articles created by socks that seem to be good end up being deleted? ShadowBallX (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course not. We don't have enwp G5 here. Whether the user is blocked / banned or not have no basis in determing deletion / inclusion. What matters is does it meet our inclusion policies. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I just wanted to be clarified before I did anthing. The reason I asked was since User:IEureka and User:بولس245 have been confirmed to be related (and since User:بولس245 is a likely sock of ArmanAfifeh), I wanted to ask before I put any articles up for QD. Thank you for clarifying. ShadowBallX (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No issues, we need to check them for meeting GNG/FOOTY and if they do, we do nothing, if they don't, lets RFD them. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just checked all of them. They all meet NFOOTY, however most would have easily failed GNG. ShadowBallX (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they meet FOOTY (a SNG), they can be implied to meet GNG (that's the point of SNG - to imply they most likely will meet GNG). What the next step is that does the claims for them to meet FOOTY (like they played in a top flight league) can be verified with good sources (like league team sheets / match sheets). FOOTY needs to be verified. @ShadowBallX: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback of my performance

Please comment on this [14] to let me know whether I am performing well or not based on whatever you feel like.DJRC (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Change the languages on the Log in page

Hi All,

The Log in page currently has these multilingual options: Deutsch | English | Esperanto | français | español | italiano | Nederlands

I know that a Log in page is fairly self-explanatory, but shouldn't we be a bit more welcoming to more people from very common languages and get away from such a Eurocentric presentation?

Suggest Language: Arabic (Standard) | Chinese (Mandarin) | English | español | | français | Hindi | Indonesian | Swahili as a limited set that covers many people and places. Possible? --Gotanda (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support the idea overall. It is certainly not right that we have Esperanto, a constructed langauge that virtually nobody speaks natively, with no languages that are non-european. Chinese is the world's most spoken langauge, and we don't offer that option? Most of the existing langauges are very similar to each other as well. Support change, yes. --IWI (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah I have no problem with that. I didn't even notice we had those options to be honest. The one offers no options. I don't know what they are without looking but I am pretty sure there is a stats page that shows where most of the hits to simple come from. I would take whatever the top 5 or so non-English countries our hits come from and use the predominant languages in those countries. That way whatever we use is related to what most of our traffic comes from, rather than just what we pull out of thin air. -Djsasso (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I didn't just "pull those suggestions out of thin air." I consulted List of languages by total number of speakers and made a judgment call not to include so many European languages; add Indonesian as mutually intelligible with Malaysian for this purpose; and, Swahili as the common non-colonial sub-Saharan African lingua franca. That way we get pretty good global coverage.--Gotanda (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, the judgement call is the part I am suggesting we avoid because everyone's judgement and idea of global will be different. The suggestion is we use the languages of the people we already know are coming here which is evidence based. -Djsasso (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But that just creates a feedback loop where the people who already use the site are addressed. Making the site more welcoming to a greater variety of visitors implies going beyond the current user base. Expanding our reach is desirable for Simple and consistent with Wikipedia Foundation strategies, especially in the global south. --Gotanda (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree, the Simple English Wikipedia should be accessible to everyone, not just those that are already coming here. We should have, as Gotanda suggested, numerous localised "ligua franca"s to be represented. English is just one of those. --IWI (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes that was the page I was referring to above. You did however miss the biggest one. So I would use India, Germany, Philippines, Pakistan, Russia, France, Nigeria which are the biggest non-english majority countries on the list. And just happen to touch most regions of the world. Perhaps might also add Spanish just to cover off the only region not really touched which is South America. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, Nigeria's lingua franca is English, so it might be best to just replace that with Swahili (a non-European lingua franca). Also, Mandarin Chinese is the world's most spoken language and should still probably be included. I agree Spanish should be included too. With that said, I agree with Gotanda that using the people that already come here is probably not a good way of doing this. --IWI (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Honestly I would just remove them all like does. People are most likely to log into their own language wiki. But if we are going to do it we really should do it based on our audience. While Mandarin may be the most spoken, due to the great firewall, the vast majority of them won't make it here other than ones who live in other countries obviously. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pageviews by country does to equate to pageviews by first language of the reader. India and the Philippines are quite multilingual and English is an official and widely used language. My students studying remotely from China do access Wikipedia using a VPN. China may not show up much in pageviews for that reason. Again, I would like to point out that only going by some estimate of current audience only addresses that and does not help make the site more welcoming to newer users and does not address Wikimedia strategies to better engage the global south. Germany is high by access but that may include many non-German speakers (if we are reaching some of our intended audience) and many German residents have good English language skills. But we could go with Arabic (Standard) | Chinese (Mandarin) | English | español | | français | Hindi | Indonesian | Russian | Swahili if that isn't too unwieldy. --Gotanda (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Set up archives

How do I start archives on my talk page? Derpdart56 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move the talk page to User talk:Derpdart56/Archive 1. Once you move the page, remove the redirect, so your talk page is blank. If you want, I will do it for you. ShadowBallX (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is another way: you can copy and paste things from your talk page to your archive.
And there is another another way: you can set up SassoBot to do everything for you, by copying the code below.
{{User:MiszaBot/config ::|archive = User talk:USER/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
|algo = old(3d)
}} Where it says USER put your own username. This will have SassoBot archive it by month, so all posts from December 2020 will go to User talk:USER/Archive/2020/December, all from January 2021 will go to User talk:USER/Archive/2021/January etc. Belwine💬📜 16:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Derpdart56: The automated way is configurable, and can be used differently than described by Belwine. For example, my archives are by year rather than month because I prefer not to have many small archive pages. You can also name your archive pages differently. You can see the documentation for this at User:MiszaBot/config. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where do I put the code?Derpdart56 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Derpdart56: Put the code on the top of your talk page. --Belwine💬📜 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, there was an error in my code by the looks of it. I fixed it for you. --Belwine💬📜 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed policy change

I have proposed a change to the blocks and bans policy. Please take part in the discussion here. --IWI (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability for Association Football Players - Ideas

Hello. As discussed on Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo, some users think that we should use different notability standards. I have decided to make a concept for new notability rules for association football players, and want to know your opinion on them.

  • Players that have played at least one Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA[1]
  • Players who have played in at least 10 competitive games between two teams from fully professional leagues
  • Players that have won Gold, Silver, or Bronze medals at the Olympic Games

ShadowBallX (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do we determine whether a player meets the second item? While en:WP:NFOOTY is not easy to work with, I think it's easier to determine. As for the third item, we've had disputes discussions before about whether being part of a team that wins a medal (as opposed to winning an individual medal) makes a person notable. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think NFOOTY works fine personally. I see no real reason to be different to enwiki, given their wide consensus. --IWI (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't see a need to change but if there is a need, I will be keen to follow what I proposed, either the league the player can pass FOOTY in must be in a country that qualifies for world cup finals group stage or the club must advance to group stage of confederation finals, don't mind the Olympics but to be honest, Olympics for Soccer is U-23 so I am not too keen to include this. Otherwise, let's use the easier to use FOOTY. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • NFOOTY is the way to go. While I have been working to get it made better on its better than anything we would come up with here. -Djsasso (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. "Regulations Governing International Matches" (PDF). FIFA. p. 8–9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2018-05-18.

To all checkusers and administrators here,

I am making an announcement about open proxies and IP vandals. If an IP or account has been blocked for a given time, or indefinitely and the blocked user logs out and decides to wait for their blocked IP address to change, if it is blocked with the account. If the changed IP user starts vandalizing Wikipedia or evades a block, just revert the edits, check if the IP has abused many other IP addresses or accounts to vandalize, block them and ignore from now on. The same result goes for proxies. We all know proxies are not allowed on any wiki, but when they vandalize or edit here, revert the edits, check if they have evaded blocks or abused multiple IP addresses or blocked accounts, block them, and ignore from now on. Thank you. Wagnerrrr (I think we need to talk) 19:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is what admins do anyway --Belwine💬📜 19:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that the above user was indefinitely blocked by an administrator per a checkuser investigation. --IWI (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia themes

HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)/Hong Kong

New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now (February 2021)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up to access research materials on the Library Card platform:

  • Taxmann – Taxation and law database
  • PNAS – Official journal of the National Academy of Sciences
  • EBSCO – New Arabic and Spanish language databases added

We have a wide array of other collections available, and a significant number now no longer require individual applications to access! Read more in our blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

--12:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Article Protection - Peyman Keshavarzi

I am requesting article protection for the article Peyman Keshavarzi, considering the history of vandalism of the page. ShadowBallX (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need for protection on this article at this point. -Djsasso (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles copied from another wikipedia that are not complex

I found Dayglow (artist) which is directly copied from the English Wikipedia, but the quick delete template I found for it, qd-transwiki said that it was for articles that had not bee simplified. I read the article and it seemed simple enough to be here, so I don't know if we're supposed to delete the article or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox Marvin (talkcontribs) 20:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is simple, add attribution on the talk page. If it is not, use {{qd|a3}} --Belwine💬📜 20:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I nominated it for QD A3, I don't think it was simple enough --Belwine💬📜 20:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, all! I want to try writing an article or two for Simple English Wikipedia. But I am not confident that I can stay with simple word lists. (I am a native English speaker, and I do know how to use English Wikipedia.) Should I make user sub-pages, or go straight to article space? Pelagic (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Welcome back to the wiki. Both options are fine, however I tend to like starting out in a user subpage and then moving it to the main article space once it is ready. That way you can make small changes, and take whatever time you need to figure out the proper wording and get the article up to scratch.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pelagic: Welcome! We are glad to have you here. I would suggest checking this out. Auntof6 pulled together some very good to know pieces of information. Other than that, WP:HOW is helpful and, as others will attest, I am quick to link the BE 1500 wordlist. If you have any questions or want another pair of eyes to check your work, never hesitate to reach out and ask. We have a great community of editors here. Operator873talkconnect 03:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank-you for your responses, Gordonrox24 and Operator873! Also thanks for the links to Auntof6’s guide and the word list. I went ahead and made Australian magpie in main space. It was not what I planned to do first, but I noticed a red link. Several words I used are not in BE 1500 but are in VOA. I'm ... not unhappy with how the article turned out so far. (Mixed feelings, but it could be worse.) If anyone would like to critique it on its talk page (or wherever else is appropriate), then please do. Pelagic (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect the userpage proposal

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

  • Proposal - Hi, I want to make system that we can semi-protect to user who are auto-confirmed category. IPs and some users below 10 edits and 4 days, are vandaling our user pages. I think this proposal will be better. Thoughts? Please write only reasons and give your sign. No need of writing {{support}} or {{oppose}}DJRC (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]




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

Commons active users

Is anyone there who works in Wikimedia Commons actively and autopatrollers? I need help. DJRC (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TTP1233 What help you need? I am not that active there but am a patroller there. We had in fact, image-reviewers here such as Vermont and even admins like Lofty abyss. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please tell me if I upload a picture but it went mistake so I wanted to delete it. How can I do it?DJRC (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TTP1233: Simply request for deletion like you would do here. —Belwine💬📜 16:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TTP1233 Use {{speedydelete|author request}} if it's not-used elsewhere and is quite recent upload, I guess they will delete it for you. Just edit the file page and put this template into the page. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: create or signpost to a simple English grammar guide

I've only been editing for a very short amount of time, so this may already exist / have been discussed. One thing I've noticed is that there are quite a few grammatical mistakes on the wiki, which is not surprise, as it is aimed at children / non-native English speakers. Often, these are obvious examples of L1 interference (e.g. "since + is" instead of "since + has", other confusion of tenses or word order). Would it be an idea to either expand the WP:MOS with some guides on how to avoid these common mistakes, or maybe visibly signpost editors to a resource to help them with them? BobEret (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a good resource – Handbook of Basic English. Alalch Emis (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a good intro to Basic English for native speakers of English. I am suggesting a guide written in Simple English about these mistakes to allow people who can only understand Simple English to contribute. It would be unreasonable to expect someone to read that incredibly high-register prose from 80 years ago if they were at, say a B1 level of English.BobEret (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I read your post in a rather strange and convoluted way (thinking you are referring to average English speakers making mistakes when trying to write Simple English sentences). Alalch Emis (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We really should have a category for ideas no-one has ever had before... What we might need is an appreciation of how we get all the young people who are so ruthlessly (but justifiably) prevented from editing on En wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sounds like a toxic cynical remark! Macdonald-ross you should consider to delete it. Zblace (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Arabia

I just created the article History of Arabia. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could help make it better in grammar, content, or simplicity. I will expand it later. Thanks! Naddruf (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should first think about the topic as something to be added to an existing page. We already have two pages:
There is the relatively short Arabian Peninsula page.
There is the History of Islam page.
I would suggest that as we have two pages, one of which is primarily geographic and another as primarily religious, then maybe we do not need a third. We do need both to be expanded, especially the Arabian Peninsula page. I am certainly open to helping advance the geographic page.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on how long the Arabian peninsula page is supposed to be. If the article gets 5 times longer would that be too much history there? Naddruf (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my first thought is that the history of Arabia is much broader than the history of the Arab people. Maybe have a think about that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the moment (2021), there are about a dozen countries on the Arabian peninsula; while most of these territories may have a long history of being settled, the countries on the territories are "fairly recent" (20th century, perhaps 19th century). Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and perhaps other, smaller religions) originated in the area. So, my first question would be: Is there such a historical entity as the Arabian peninsula, and do the countries have a common history? - Or are we looking at a history of Iraq which is totally different, and totally unaffected by the history of say, Oman or Yemen? - supposing there is such as concept as the "Arabian peninsula", would the idea not be, to start extending, eg. the Yemen article? - Once the history section takes up more than a third to half the article, summarizer, and create a History of Yemen page. Once you have that for 3-4 of the countries on the peninsula, you can merge them together, to create a "History of Arabia" page. To my knowledge, Egyptians also see themselves as "Arabic", and they are not on the peninsula. And if you think that it is religion (most likely:Islam) uniting these countries, then you should start extending the history of Islam page. These are of course just thoughts...--Eptalon (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, there are definitely books written about the history of the Arabian peninsula, including the one I cited. There is a pretty clear unity of culture, although there are some things different about the different parts. In this way, it's kind of like India, (which historically includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal) in that it's a traditional region that has not always been unified. There are terms for part of the region like en:Hejaz, en:Najd, en:South Arabia and en:East Arabia, which don't coincide with modern countries, and Arabia as a whole was inhabited by Arabs before the age of Muhammad. I'm planning to add more about en:Pre-Islamic Arabia, so I don't think it can really go into History of Islam. There is a difference between the Arab world and the smaller region of Arabia, which primarily consists of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and I'm not sure about Kuwait, southern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and Syria. Anyway, Egypt would not be included although there are Arabs who live there, and Israel is part of the Middle East but not really Arabia. As for your suggestions about merging, I could combine part of it into the Arabia article if it's better that way. How long do you think the article should be before it would be better to split? Alternatively it could be changed to history of the Middle East, but that would be much broader in scope.Naddruf (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have a look at Liberia, and its talk page; there was a very similar discussion. As it turns out, the Liberia article is about 8k in size, the article History of Liberia is about 2k. Suppose you take the article Arabian peninsula: A few sententeces lede/intro, rest probably split equally between history and geography. Meaning: once the history gets bigger than about a third of the article, it is moved to its own article, summarized, and linked, much as was done in the Liberia article. --Eptalon (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomy template tribulations

I was cleaning up the uncategorized article Clione and started creating templates to connect this genus to the already-logged subclass Heterobranchia. I created templates for the genus Template:Taxonomy/Clione, the family Template:Taxonomy/Clionidae and superfamily Template:Taxonomy/Clionoidea I keep getting "Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 225: attempt to index a nil value." Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to fix but was unable to fix, I tried to update our local version of the Module but it's the latest, hope someone can help. Thanks Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed it. You had some information filled out wrong in Template:Taxonomy/Clionoidea. I believe it was because you had superfamily instead of superfamilia. -Djsasso (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks DJS. And thanks CM; good to know it wasn't just me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, and I am frustrated with myself for not seeing the fix is such a simple one. I am thinking it will take many many steps. Thanks DJ too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fixed. Misplaced }} in the text. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It took me lots of tries, and I failed. Thanks for fixing! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always look for }} or {{ in the middle of a wall of text. So if you see "|something |something}} |something |something"
Chances are that }} is in the wrong spot, because the template is trying to continue on after it is supposed to have ended. If that makes sense.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maintenance request for Twinkle

Per this, is it possible to prevent the A QD options (i.e. A1 to A6) to appear in TW QD menu if the namespace is not article. Now it appears in article/article talk. This will allow better QD tagging in my humble opinion. Thanks.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

Is there a page to report a potential sockpuppet instead of just throwing the suspected sockpuppet template on their user page when I'm not 100% sure? --Hellothere4 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellothere4: The WP:RFCU page is for reporting socks to CheckUsers. Usually the tags should not be put there unless the user has been blocked already. --IWI (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok thanks I will use that. --Hellothere4 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy on References

I have a question. What if there is an article here on simple and all references are written in Ukraine. How is that handled?

Here is the article.

Thanks - --PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References written in Ukrainian are still references, and can still be used in an article, I believe. --Belwine (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Belwine@PotsdamLamb The so called guiding policy is here en:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks CM! One of the reasons I asked is because there are numerous refs to a in Ukraine and I do not know if they are even valid and not a POV or anything. PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb For that based on these discussion on enwp, there is a consensus that the site is a en:WP:BLOG and en:WP:SPS. Hence, I will incline to think it as not reliable. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok that was my thinking. I left the author a note on their page about it. Thanks again - PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, glad to be able to help. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


So as I am going through fixing articles, some I have tagged as needing more references because they only rely on one source. This has auto-created a red link titled "Category:Articles needing additional references from February 2021"

How should I handle this? Should I create a cat, a sub cat?

Thanks, PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Create the category and add {{MonthlyCleanupCat}}. --Belwine (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Belwine: - Can you help me with what I should do now? I have the page created, but it doesn't show up in the main cat so I think I missed something. Please don't do it for me, but try to walk me through it so I can learn. Here is the [[Category:Articles_needing_additional_references_from_February_2021]]. Thanks PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what the issue is. What's the main category - the Category:Counter categories? Belwine (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not on the monthly list but looks like it ended up in a different place? Is that the correct place? PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I think you need to use {{MonthlyCleanupCat}} instead of {{Counter category}}. Thanks, Belwine (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha - Got it! Now it looks right :) PotsdamLamb (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminism & Folklore 1 February - 31 March

Please help translate to your language


You are invited to participate in Feminism and Folklore writing contest. This year Feminism and Folklore will focus on feminism, women's biographies and gender-focused topics for the project in league with Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus with folk culture theme on Wikipedia. folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, fairy tales, folk plays, folk arts, folk religion, mythology, etc.

You can help us in enriching the folklore documentation on Wikipedia from your region by creating or improving articles centered on folklore around the world, including, but not limited to folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, women and queer personalities in folklore, folk culture (folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch-hunting, fairy tales and more. You can contribute to new articles or translate from the list of suggested articles here.

You can also support us in translating the project page and help us spread the word in your native language.

Learn more about the contest and prizes from our project page. Thank you.

Feminism and Folklore team,

Joy Agyepong (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Square in article history pages

What are the boxes after the two circles? I can't see any explanation for what the square does.Kdammers (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is to select specific edits. Admins for example use it to pick specific edits to delete. -Djsasso (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There should be an explanation.Kdammers (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]