Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 135

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

FR Yugoslavia national football team

Hello. Yesterday, an IP editor made FR Yugoslavia national football team. I tried to redirect it to Serbia and Montenegro national football team, but the IP who made the page reverted it twice. I tried to solve the situation by asking on one of the talk pages, where I got no reply. I want to know other peoples opinion on if we should redirect or not.

Note that all 3 IPs that have edited the page are blocked on enwiki as part of a school block, with one being previously blocked for disruptive editing. ShadowBallX (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirected and blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple English

I have two questions.

1) Why are some words which are not proper nouns capitalized in the list of basic English? These include 'purr,'* 'college' and 'embassy' as well academic subjects like 'chemistry.'

2) The notice on a page of someone (presumably "anyone" rather than"someone") who has recently died reads in part "a person who died a short time ago." This does not seem like simple English to me. It has a relative clause, a use of 'short' that might not be clear, and what probably looks like an extra adjective ('ago') stuck on at the end. which not the common location for adjectives in English. Why don't we use 'recently'? That would reduce some of the complexity. It ranks 638 on the New General Service List (

  • As a side issue, I don't know why 'purr' is on the list but 'growl' and a dog's 'bark' are not -- but that issue probably extends beyond Simple English's purview.

Kdammers (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire list you are referencing comes directly from a very well known source done by the researcher Ogden. You would have to read their research for answers to your questions regarding what is on the list etc. Looking at the source they are capitalized there so we capitalize here. -Djsasso (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
We are not bound by Ogden's lists. Their purpose was to show his ideas on a simplified English vocabulary. Because we have many young readers, and readers for whom English is not their native language, we try to write so they have a better chance of understanding. Doing that is not easy, and Ogden's ideas have their uses. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-08

00:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Spider-man 3

So we just learned the name and release date for Marvel's Spider-Man 3. Here is the link. They also added a funny video to it. Does it warrant an article now or should we wait for a trailer? --Hellothere4 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Has already been created, and moved to new name. See Spider-Man: No Way HomeBelwine (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Category, do we have it?

Do we have a category for people who died of COVID-19, like Cody Anderson? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Here:Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic --Hellothere4 (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will implement it ASAP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

IP(s) Creating Articles

  • In the past there has been discussion on various IPs creating stub type articles. I am running to this similar behaviour here, and I am wondering if this IP is a bot. I don't want to associate this IP by saying 'this is likely X editor using them' just yet. I am just wondering if the Abuse Filter to stop X in Y stub creations can be put in place, as mentioned before, this action put strains in Patrollers, and I don't think having a one line article is helpful to begin with. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    It might be simpler to simply block the IPs as before. It is likely a bot. --IWI (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    We know who it is as this was talked about here awhile back, and they are doing it slowly now as opposed to before when it was likely a bot. I am monitoring the situation. One liners are helpful and perfectly acceptable. Tsugaru you need to get out of the mindset that short articles are bad. -Djsasso (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, if they're doing them at a slower pace without the assistance of an unauthorised bot, then it is okay. I hadn't looked at the timeframes in depth. --IWI (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    I notice that sometimes the articles are being created quite quickly (1-2 every minute), and sometimes they are created every now and then.
    I was thanked by another user for an edit I made to one of these articles so I am quite sure about who it is. —Belwine (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    They are mostly creating one every 5 or so minutes now. Creating an article that is one sentence only takes seconds. Before they used to create 3 or 4 a minute. -Djsasso (talk)
     (change conflict) The point is whether they are creating on a mass automated scale, which doesn't seem to be the case now I am looking into it. As long as a page demonstrates some kind of significance past the A4 threshold (which all legally-recognised geographic places do), then it is fine. Of course, we would prefer a little more, but it is fine. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yep last time the issue was they were clearly using a bot. They even appear to have mostly fixed the bad grammar they used to use as well. So really our messaging to them last time appears to have worked but I am watching to see if that changes. (and I assume other admins are as well). -Djsasso (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Djsasso, I'm sorry if my opinion on short articles made you angry. That was not the intention here, it was just my personal opinion, however I did mention about the abuse filter above I'm not saying it should go on right away, there needs to be a community consensus to do so, and I respect what ever the consensus is. I'm not saying to not create 1 liner articles, I just meant that they should not be created in many at once. I am really sorry If what I said seemed rude. On an unrelated note, I asked earlier on Auntof6's talkpage, about a way to move the 'mark this page as partolled' bar into a different menu, so I don't accidentally click on it when viewing a page. Is there a mod for this? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not angry at all, but I often see people complaining about short articles. And short stub articles are very important. I think what leads people to think this is that they compare our articles to articles. But most people weren't around in the early days of English Wikipedia. Their articles all mostly started the exact same way, but because they had many thousands of editors compared to our tiny numbers they moved past that point for most articles in a couple years. We on the other hand are going to be in the stage of having many short articles for many years, likely decades. Doing them fast is fine as long as they are not using automation to do it and they are not making a mess of the articles. And no there isn't a mod for moving the link that I am aware of. -Djsasso (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Good articles

So I was thinking about starting a good article and I was wondering if I would be allowed to copy over the info box and any other needed tables from it's en wiki page to save time or is that not allowed for good articles? --Hellothere4 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes you can bring stuff like that over. -Djsasso (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok thank --Hellothere4 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Is attribution needed for this (infobox)? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought attribution was always needed. --Hellothere4 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I think too. I'm 99% sure it is needed, but I want to make sure for sure. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah an infobox would be past the threshold of originality as far as I can see. --IWI (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Depends what you mean. If you just mean copying the template to use to an article or creating the template itself. If you are creating the template then yes you should attribute. If you are just pasting the template onto the article then you would not have to (but it doesn't hurt to) because they are straight statements of fact. -Djsasso (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
A good way to attribute the source of content is in the Change summary. If you get in the habit of writing this before you hit "Page preview," then "Publish changes," you'll avoid skipping this step. Deborahjay (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


Will I get in trouble for changing a redirect to a standalone? --Dingothegorg 16:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dingothegorg: What is the redirect you are planning on changing? —Belwine (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Belwine: I was gonna plan on making the Conure page standalone from the Parakeet page --Dingothegorg 18:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that would be perfectly fine. -Djsasso (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


Is there a way to see the most linked non-existent page? ShadowBallX (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Special:WantedPages --Hellothere4 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. ShadowBallX (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't just go through creating redirects though if that is what you are thinking of doing. (noticed you did that on the first one). The red links help to get us to create articles, redirecting can hide the fact we need the article. Of course there are times when a redirect is warranted. I am just saying be careful if that was your intention. -Djsasso (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The reason I created the redirect was because I thought that since it was a list of the topic, a redirect to the list would make sense. I don't have the intention of just creating redirects. ShadowBallX (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I figured as much, I have just seen it before where people do things like that just to clear one of the many special pages of things to do and I wanted to catch it before it started incase you did want to do something like that. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A question

How can i create a wikiproject?12345678910FruitTalk(My Changes) 20:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@12345678910Fruit: Go to User:12345678910Fruit/Wikiproject X (X being the thing you want to create a Wikiproject about) and then create the page. —Belwine (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@12345678910Fruit: Just note that we have some WikiProjects, but they are unofficial and they are maintained in userspace. Unlike WikiProjects at English Wikipedia:
  • We do not use categories for individual WikiProjects. There is Category:WikiProjects for the project pages and Category:WikiProject user templates for WikiProject user templates.
  • We do not use categories for WikiProject participants. Participants can be listed on individual project pages.
  • We do not use WikiProject banners on article talk pages.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A question about disambiguation pages

How can disambiguation pages be created?--12345678910FruitTalk(My Changes) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@12345678910Fruit: It's not much different from creating other articles. The things you need are (using "xyz" as a sample name):
  • A line at the top that says something like "Xyz might refer to:"
  • A list of articles whose subjects might be called "xyz"
  • At the bottom, {{disambiguation}}
You can always edit an existing disambiguation page to see an example, then just cancel out of the edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest

01:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

About Oakland Raiders

The Oakland Raiders are now the Las Vegas Raiders. Why is this article still called "Oakland Raiders" and not "Las Vegas Raiders"? --LadyLauren600 03:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There aren't many editors here, that's why. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The Oakland Raiders page redirects you to the Las Vegas Raiders page. It says so when you click Oakland Raiders. --Hellothere4 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! --LadyLauren600 03:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hellothere4: I just made the move. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
cool. --Hellothere4 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting (and random) Simple English Wiki Fact

Simple English Wikipedia is currently ranked 50th for most articles on list of wikis. We are currently around 4000 articles ahead of 51th place Azerbaijani Wikipedia, and around 6000 articles behind 49th place Greek Wikipedia.

This is all on meta:List of Wikipedias. Do whatever you want with info, cause it exists. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi, Just wondering are infoboxes for vehicles okay or should they be left out ?,
Belwine added this infobox (copied from EN) to a bus model - Few points:

  1. Other than weight, length and door configuration everything else that needs to be in the article is already included
  2. Articles tend to be small and it could make the article unnecessarily big (and if both infoboxes are added at Enviro400 it would require 2 infoboxes which would make that article 10x bigger for nothing)
  3. I didn't know if infoboxes here were actually considered too technical

I've tried to lay this out in a way that makes sense but if it doesn't let me know and I'll try and clarify, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are ok. And infoboxes are intended to be a summary of the important points in the article. So everything in an infobox should always also be in the article. On an aside, for Enviro400 only a single infobox is required for the overall model. You don't require one for each generation. And no they wouldn't be too technical as technical is fine, its the language that needs to be simple not the information. -Djsasso (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah okay thanks Djsasso, You learn something new everyday! :), In regards to the Enviro400MMC that on EN is considered a new bus entirely so because of that I assumed that article would require 2 but I guess all could be merged. Anyway many thanks for replying and thank you for adding IBs to the articles, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite errors

We've got a few cite templates that are throwing errors onto pages. I've been digging into them trying to see if I can find what's going on.

I've removed/hidden parts of the template to see if I can find what is causing the problem. They now all look like they are "fixed" except for EB19111 which I can't seem to quite figure out. It also feels like while I've maybe fixed their appearance on articles, I've probably just broken some sort of functionality. If somebody with some more template experience could also look into this and try to figure it out/see what I've broken that would be great.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Gordonrox24 - Given coauthor and author aren't even on the EN template I would assume they should be removed here ?, Maybe an admin could import all 4 templates from EN which may fix all the issues present?. –Davey2010Talk 00:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the EB1911 was very out of date. Will look at the others. -Djsasso (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Think I have them all fixed and updated and working on articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Communes of Languedoc

Because an IP editor put it there. Can probably just be QD as nonsense. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I do like the template. Could I copy it into userspace? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 03:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean, it's deleted now. But in general I don't see why you couldn't. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Tsugaru, If you really want, I can still copy it to your userspace (the version that was deleted). If you want to, please leave me a message on my talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The template we had is complete graffiti, and hd nothing to do with the communes in languedoc. Note, that 1-2 years back there was a territorial reform in France, regrouping 2-3 of the old regions into a new one. The respective entity is now called Occitanie. Its capital is probably Toulouse. Note, that there are about 4.500 communes in Occitanie. That means that there could be up to 1.500 communes in Languedoc (if they merged form 3 regions). Which isn't something suitable for a template...--Eptalon (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

form, kind, sort, type, passive voice

Quick question: of the following four words: form, kind, sort, and type, which is the best to use here? I noticed that the first three are on Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist but each of these also has another meaning. Naddruf (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say it depends on the context. Can you give specific examples? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
An example for this would be in community (ecology): "Three forms of consumption are predation, herbivory, and parasitism." Another example is on lung cancer: "There are two main types of lung cancer, small cell lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer." I think these are used in pretty much the same way. Naddruf (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
To me, form is more complex. I would use type or kind. Kind might be the best choice because, although it also has multiple meanings, that other meaning (nice, or considerate) might be less likely to be confused because they're different parts of speech. That's just my thought, though; I don't think there's any official preference. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Naddruf (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • And another question. Is it always wrong to use the passive voice here or are there some cases where it is useful? Naddruf (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Not always wrong. For example, saying "John Doe was born in New York" is a use of passive. Again, though, it depends on the context and I could further advise you if you can give specific examples. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
When "what is done" is more important than "who or what is doing it". For example, on IP address it says "An IP address is converted to physical or Media Access Control Address using the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)." Would it be better if this kind of thing were in active voice, or is it good the way it is? Naddruf (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Is it the ARP that does the converting, or does something else use the ARP to do it? Either way, I think one of the following might be better:
  • The Address Resolution Protocol converts an IP address to a Media Access Control Address.
  • The <fill-in-the-blank> uses the Address Resolution Protocol to convert an IP address to a Media Access Control Address.
According to my tutoring students, passive is one of the more difficult things for English learners to understand. So even though we understand when passive is a good choice (the which-is-more-important issue you mentioned), it's worth trying not to use it unless it makes a sentence too convoluted. Again, these are my thoughts, nothing official. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll try to use active voice (as I have been), but it's okay to use passive voice if active voice would make the sentence too complex or introduce unimportant details. Naddruf (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a long-standing preference in the "how to write" literature to prefer active voice where possible because it is the easier to decode. The sentence structure of the active voice is more straightforward. The Fowlers compare "ready to be availed of" with "available" (that's pretty far-fetched). Appreciating that "the cat sat on the mat" is simpler than "the mat was sat on by the cat" puts the writer at the starting-gate.
If more ideas are needed, I would suggest Rudolf Flesch's The art of readable writing. Harper & Row ISBN 0-06-011293, Walter Nash's English Usage: a guide to first principles. Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-1200-3 and E.D. Hirsch Jr's The philosophy of composition. Chicago U.P. ISBN 0-226-34243-3. The other kind of advice is "before you can become a writer, you first have to be a reader". Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename Roxas, Capiz to Roxas City

Please don't use colloquial names. in the name should not be included province name Capiz. the official name is Roxas City. Having colloquial names causes confusion. Unfortunately this data is propagated on so many places and it is causing problem is address searches. Please rename it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Hanusiak (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Hanusiak: actually, I believe this isn't the case, per w:WP:COMMONNAME and the page on enwiki. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ —Belwine (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Belwine: I don't understand what is not this case? Capiz is province and Roxas City is capital of that province. Roxas is just short name. Naming it Roxas, Capiz is odd, since when you look at other cities in the same category, they don't have province as suffix. Just check Iloilo city, if we were to follow Roxas, Capiz example, it should be named Iloilo, Iloilo and that is absurd. First you removed word City and secondly you add province name. Please rename it. I can provide you official documents from Roxas City if you don't believe that official name is Roxas City. —Peter Hanusiak (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe that the official name is Roxas City - it even says so on enwiki.
Regarding the name of the article though, North Korea is not Democratic People's Republic of Korea (link is a redirect), so official names aren't always the names that Wikipedia articles use. —Belwine (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we then rename it to Roxas City, instead of Roxas,Capiz?. —Peter Hanusiak (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Out of interest, do you know about Roxas City in real life? In casual conversation is it called Roxas City, or Roxas? —Belwine (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Well yes, we have business in Roxas City, and I am trying to correct all open data sources with correct names, since somewhere is name Capiz or Cadiz etc. So it is causing me a trouble since I can't generate address for our place. This is head ache in Philippines. But back to your question, in casual conversation it is Roxas or Roxas City. Definitely not Roxas Capiz, that makes no sense. I believe this was an error of someone who created this record for the first time. He made same mistake with Sigma, Capiz. Interestingly all other cities in Philippines don't have this problem. Well let's correct it now. —Peter Hanusiak (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It's Roxas, Capiz because there are other cities called Roxas, I believe. This is how articles are disambiguated —Belwine (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Well let's use consistent logic. Just look at the Iloilo City, which is on the same Panay island and it is properly called Iloilo city. Although in casual conversation people called it Iloilo. Yet no one created page Iloilo, Iloilo. They used correct name Iloilo City. Having Roxas City would just have consistent approach for all names. Why only Roxas City and Sigma has province name in the page name? Why not the other cities? This make no sense. It just confuses people. —Peter Hanusiak (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Let's wait and see the consensus on enwiki before we move here —Belwine (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you need to read MOS:PHIL When to use city as part of the city name which explains why Iloilo uses City. -Djsasso (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The consensus on is Oppose. I really don't see the need to move this page. If there are other towns named Roxas, then wouldn't it make sense to separate them based on province? Derpdart56 (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I kind of hesitated on this, but yes the points brought up in the other discussion are valid. This should not be moved. -Djsasso (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about Twinkle

When I was using Twinkle, I noticed something interesting. Twinkle has 3 options for QD G6, being Move (Making way for a noncontroversial move, like reversing a redirect), RfD (An admin has closed an RfD as delete), and Housekeeping (Other non-controversial "housekeeping" tasks). Can someone explain to me why it is like this? Thanks, and have a good day. ShadowBallX (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

G6 is for Housekeeping. Anything non-controversial. All three of those examples are non-controversial housekeeping. Twinkle just gives different wordings to be more specific. Likely not used very often by non-admin. The only real example that a non-admin would do this would be when certain maintenance categories become empty etc. But we have templates in those categories that automatically tag them now so you likely will never put a G6 on an page except perhaps as mentioned above for making a move. -Djsasso (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying. I was confused when I saw 3 QD G6 reasons, which is why I asked here. ShadowBallX (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Current event: Atlanta shootings

Just started an article on the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings. This is likely to see a lot of traffic. Studies show that the more different people who work on an article, the more accurate it is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just make sure the current event tag only stays up for a week or two. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. I infer you mean a week after it stops being current, but it's a good cutoff. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah like a week or two from today. It isn't a super useful tag and I generally think on this wiki there isn't much point to it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

RFD IP votes

Can regular users strike those out? I saw a few on a recent RFD that noone's gotten around to nulling them yet. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

IP votes on Rfds are allowed. They just can't do it multiple times. -Djsasso (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Derpdart56: And I prefer that people not strike out votes other than their own. If you feel you need to draw attention to a comment that's problematic in some way, you can do so by leaving a comment. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)