Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 146

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aspiringchemistyht (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

i would like to know why i am banned? i was told it was for chinese numbers but then i was told that was irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspiringchemistyht (talkcontribs) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aspiringchemistyht: You are not blocked or banned here, which you can tell by the fact that you were able to edit this page. You are blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia, which is a separate site. You need to ask about this on the site where you are blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aspiringchemistyht has been blocked for this continuous activity per WP:ONESTRIKE. Dibyojyotilet's chat 09:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have a tool to check if words are good here?

I sometimes struggle to figure out what words fit here. I am a native speaker of English so I have some trouble knowing which words are preferred here and which are too complex. Immanuelle (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some tools that give you an idea of the grade level of text. We sometimes say to try for an 8th-grade reading level. You can use Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist as a starting point, but the best thing is just to have a feel for what words are simpler than others. Another part of writing simple English is using simple sentence structure. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages might help you. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lexical Tutor is an amazing website with many tools for analyzing vocabulary. The Vocabulary Profiler here is easy to use. It will tell you which words in your text are very common and therefore simpler and which ones are uncommon and therefore less understood. --Gotanda (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used complexity checker gizmos all the time when I was rating articles for the WikiLovesWomen edit-a-thon! I'll see if I can find my favorite again! Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: Found it! Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD

I was in the process of adding a page for quick deletion using Twinkle and the page was deleted before I entered it. Twinkle still made a deletion discussion page for the deleted page. Can I delete this page? Midknight of the Abyss (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Midknight1342, I'm afraid I didn't see this and have already closed the RfD. If a page is already deleted before you've created the RfD, you can request the RfD for quick deletion under G6. --Ferien (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusion in biology articles

I think people should be make it clear what an article is about, when they are writing about living things. In some cases it isn't clear whether an article is about a larger group or a smaller group. Two examples are:

  • Cod which has the taxobox for en:Gadidae, but in the first sentence, defines cod to be en:Gadus morhua. Probably Gadus morhua is the most important species of cod, and it's okay for the article to mostly about that species. But I think it shouldn't give the species name in the first sentence, because that changes the scope of the article.
  • Blackbird which seems to be about all birds that are called blackbirds, but has a wikidata link to en:Common blackbird, Turdus merula. But in the intro, it mentions a different species, en:Mistle thrush, Turdus viscivorus, which isn't described in the article (and isn't even a blackbird!).

Lights and freedom (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The confusion is really caused by the insistence of editors in using common names for living things, which I warned about over ten years ago. The Linnaean system was designed to avoid all this: one naming system throughout the world. Unfortunately there is also a biological angle, because long-term the wretched animals do evolve and, worse still, ignorant journalists insist on using local names. I'm afraid that as long as you have pages with titles like "Cod" you are going to have trouble. And yet I quite understand the need for names that readers can recognise. I should mention that taxoboxes are brought over by D.J. Sasso, and sometimes may be at odds with the text. If you think these issues are easy to solve, do go ahead and try it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English wiki was first

The use of common names instead of scientific names for popular animals and plants was established on En wiki before Simple wiki was founded. The long-term consequences were not understood by those early editors. In top of the page titles with popular names came the infoboxes with excessive formalities. Now, it's not sane to change such basic decisions. Just understand that wiki systems have their limitations. We're stuck with some decisions made 20+ years ago, and other systems are stuck with other kinds of inflexibility. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back

I tried fixed to my draft "IShowSpeed", but there is a redirect page, how to back about his IShowSpeed to draft page? Bakhos2010 (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bakhos2010, I deleted the page about iShowSpeed as there was no claim to notability in the article. We don't have the draft namespace here. Do you want the page to be restored to your userspace so you can work on it there? --Ferien (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Bakhos2010 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bakhos2010, you can edit it at User:Bakhos2010/IShowSpeed. --Ferien (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also i fixed IShowSpeed draft page. So what do you think? Bakhos2010 (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bakhos2010 The draft could use some work, but YouTube videos are not reliable sources(unless stated otherwise). SoyokoAnis - talk 12:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bakhos2010: Agree with SoyokoAnis here. We need to try showing things from secondary reliable sources, not on YouTube and not from Speed. --Ferien (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UCoC EG Community review period closed

Dear Wikimedians,

Thank you for participating in the review of the Revised Enforcement Draft Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). The UCoC project team and the Revisions Committee appreciate you all taking the time to discuss the guidelines, suggest changes, and ask questions.

This community review period lasted from September 8 to October 8, 2022. Over the past four weeks, the UCoC project team has collected valuable community input from various channels, including three conversation hours sessions, where Wikimedians could get together to discuss the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines. The Revisions Committee will review community input when they reconvene in the second week of October 2022. The UCoC project team will support them in providing updates as they continue their work and will continue to inform the community about all important developments and milestones as the Committee prepares the final version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines that is currently scheduled for a community-wide vote in mid-January of 2023.

On behalf of the the UCoC project team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flag template not working for Afghanistan?

The countries listed in List of countries are listed using the {{flag}} template. However, that template doesn't seem to work for Afghanistan, so it gets removed and replaced, removed and replaced. It seems to be the same on en:List of countries. Would anyone like to look at it to see if they can figure out why {{flag}} won't display a flag for Afghanistan? TIA. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6 The flag shows up on my browser. The file used for Afghanistan is this file. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fehufanga: Thanks. I was ignorantly expecting a different kind of flag, not just text like that one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was wondering why that flag kept getting removed. I thought maybe the Taliban decided not to use a flag or something. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to add wikidata ID

So, I guess I just need help on this. How do you insert one? SikiWtideI (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)SikiWtideIReply[reply]

@SikiWtideI Hi, if you want to link an article to Wikidata, the easiest way to do it is to click "Add interlanguage links" or "Add links", which can be found on the left side of the screen. You can then link a page to Wikidata by entering the name of the article on another project (it's easiest to go with the English Wikipedia) and the project's name. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SikiWtideI @Fehufanga: Yes, just be sure you're entering the correct page name. Sometimes a page on another Wikipedia with the same name as one here isn't about the same thing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrolling new pages

Hey all, new page patrol is one of the areas where I think the project will benefit with more participation. The problem, however, is that we have no clear set of criteria/guidelines that can help us know which page to mark patrolled. I think that is one of the many reasons why people hesitate to mark the yellow pages that appear on the new page list as patrolled. This makes things really hard as it is time-consuming to distinguish between the pages that have already been reviewed by experienced editors and the ones that needs to be reviewed.

New pages are not perfect, and we can't expect new page patrollers to deal with all the issues on the page. Pages are usually made better by the participation of multiple interested users. So, page being marked as patrolled doesn't mean it is a good page. It just means that it meets the basic requirements for being in an encyclopedia.

Here is what I think can be the basic criteria to mark a page as patrolled:

  1. The title of the page should be correct (per WP:MOS)
  2. The content of the page should be wikified to a certain extent. This includes link to other pages, bold and italics text where needed, infobox, pictures etc.
  3. The content of the page should be simplified to certain extent.
  4. There should not be significant grammar errors on the page. It should make sense.
  5. There should at least be one reference for verifiability unless the subject is very common like eg. 'Apple'.
  6. The subject of the page should meet the notability requirement.
  7. References and other websites should be properly formatted. Appropriate sections should be added if there are those, and there isn't a dedicated section for them yet.
  8. The page should be properly categorised and tagged. This doesn't mean one can just bomb a page with tags. This is only for the necessary tags like merge and stub tags which generally encourage editing.

If you have any suggestion regarding this, please feel free to write it down. I am just listing what I think could potentially improve our process and make things easier. There might be other better ways to do this, or maybe our current way of doing things is fine. I just thought it might be constructive discussing this. Thanks--BRP ever 14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also User:Auntof6/Things I would like Wikipedia editors to know#How to patrol, perhaps a mix between your and their ideas would be good to make a guideline or policy. Will expand on my opinion later. --Ferien (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 on this list and everything on Auntof6's list as the basic criteria to patrol a page. I don't think 6 should be included as I feel patrols should be quick checks, checking something meets the notability requirement takes a relatively long time compared to everything else. --Ferien (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe at least a quick check to see if it seems notable. Otherwise, when would we catch things that aren't notable? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, normally we either look for a claim or any other indication of the subject meeting WP:GNG. I think it should at least not be QD-able per A4.--BRP ever 13:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BRPever and Auntof6: how about something like "The page isn't eligible for quick deletion"? That covers A4 and other possible problems with the article. --Ferien (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe. What I usually do is this: if I decide to request a QD or RFD on a new page, I mark it as patrolled after I do the request. That way, no one else has to spend time looking at it. I don't think of marking a page as patrolled as saying that the page is good, just that it has been checked and any appropriate actions taken. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a lie many times you have just deleted pages with no QD on it nor giving time for someone to respond to anything you post. You just mass delete. Such a liar. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:1938:C5F8:1A68:857C (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as all admins do, I sometimes delete pages that have no QD on them. But what I said above is "if I decide to request a QD or RFD". That means when I decide not to delete the page myself, but instead add a QD request so that another admin can look at it. That doesn't happen often, but it does happen even if you haven't seen it.
The quick deletion criteria are things that are not supposed to require discussion, so it is not expected that discussion is necessary. That's why it's called quick deletion. If you have a problem with any page being deleted, you can use Wikipedia:Deletion review to ask for it to be reconsidered.
Finally, please do not call me or anyone else a liar. If you think I or someone else has said something that isn't true, please provide specific examples of what you're talking about. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t have time to go through all of the ones you just up and deleted because you wanted to. Yes very rarely have you put a QD on but you just delete with no notice. Look at all of your deletion logs since others do not have rights to see them other than admins and above. Again pretty self-explanatory. Honestly your admin should be pulled for misusing it to your advantage and to set things how you want them and when you don’t agree “Poof the Magic Mop” comes in and wipes it away. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:1938:C5F8:1A68:857C (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, no specific examples... just broad statements that seem to be incorrect, looking at the reply below as well. As I said, this isn't the place for casting aspersions on other editors. And yes, these are aspersions - if you are accusing another editor of misbehaviour without evidence, that is casting aspersions... --Ferien (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is tiresome to have to go through, but in the event a new or inexperienced editor is reading this thread, it should be noted the above IP is a globally locked LTA evading their block for, among other things, griefing sysops and being unkind. Sysops on this and most other projects can delete pages that meet WP:QD criteria without first tagging the page. Those who have a mop don't need to wait for someone to put a spill sign down. Operator873 connect 06:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that sounds good.--BRP ever 12:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added an item to my page linked by Ferien. That item is to make sure the page is linked in Wikidata if possible.
As for being properly categorised, that could be a guideline by itself. I tend to look at that by accounting for all the typical question words, as applicable: who, what, when, where, why, how. Not all of those are applicable to every kind of topic, and some of them apply differently or in multiple ways to some topics, but I think it's a good starting place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am strongly against requiring articles to be properly categorized to meet the basic requirements. Okeh, if you want to categorize a page, but I find the whole category thing pretty much useless. The few times I have gone to a category, I have gotten nothing out of it (beyond some head scratching). Kdammers (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not useless to me and I think it's usefulness depends on the user. For now, categories exist, and they are an important part of the project. Categorising pages has a lot of use other than just being a means to find articles from a group, or finding similar pages to study. That being said, it's not too hard if you use tools like Hotcat. Also, if we put it in the guideline, it just means you can leave the part you are unsure about to someone else and just not mark it as patrolled. That being said, I think patrollers need to have some knowledge of categories. BRP ever 23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with BRP. Would this be an essay, or an addition to the Patrollers page (which I think should also be made a guideline). Griff (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting that an admin brings it up and everyone hops on board, but if a regular user brings it up, it is immediately shot down by Auntof6 and god forbid outside an admin they ask for this permission and Auntof6 immediately responds with their templated not a chance in hell message. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:51DF:31A:7008:FD44 (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just completely wrong (perhaps you want to view the other posts on this page) and this isn't the place for casting aspersions on Auntof6 and other admins... in fact, I don't think anyone wants you to be casting aspersions anywhere on this website. If you can't provide evidence for any of your claims of admin abuse, then we're not interested in it. --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien Look at all the people who requested the right for patrolling and Auntof6’s response. Not one person has been approved for the right because they haven’t created enough substantial articles. They even mentioned it in this thread and the ones below. They evidence is right there under your nose but since you are an admin you too will protect other admins. No where does it state a minimum number of articles so that is what that admin always uses as an excuse for denying the rights to someone. For this project someone would need that right but get rejected because of that admins views on what they consider enough articles. See Wikipedia:Patrollers. Look at their history. There are no aspirations, just full on truth which you as an admin can’t see through the fog that has enveloped your head since you got the mop. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:1938:C5F8:1A68:857C (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I was a patroller before becoming an admin. I don't think getting a patroller flag is that hard if you know how to create basic articles that meet most of the criteria listed above. I think you are just exaggerating things instead of working on the pointed concerns by an admin. That being said, patroller flag just marks yours, or the page you think meets the basic criteria and won't need other patroller's attention as patrolled. It's not a big deal. BRP ever 23:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I think a lot of why we haven't had a new patroller this year isn't because admins decline everyone straight away... it's instead because people seem to misunderstand what the patroller right is. It isn't really anything to do with anti-vandalism and more to do having a lot of experience with creating new pages and showing that you know what a new page should look like. --Ferien (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Griffinofwales I think we can just make this a part of WP:PATROL. If the page becomes lengthy later, we can summarize it and create a different essay, but for now, I think we can just add it there. :) --BRP ever 12:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Based on the suggestions here, I have made a proposal for the text to be added at Wikipedia talk:Patrollers. Please feel to make any suggestions that you have here or on that page. :) --BRP ever 05:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: Merge diseases, disorders, and illnesses categories

Simplewiki has Category:Diseases, Category:Disorders, and Category:Illnesses, but on enwiki they are merged to en:Category:Diseases and disorders. I suggest the same thing should be done here, because there is no clear distinction between them. For example, why is Parkinson's disease considered a disease and not a disorder? Can we discuss this?

Note: this does not mean that there shouldn't be categories within Category:Diseases and disorders, such as "Genetic disorders", "Infectious diseases", "Mental illnesses", etc. It only means these three words by themselves don't help classify topics.

Lights and freedom (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got to factor in that many editors here write on topics they really know little about. Parkinsons is better described as a condition, but "Diseases are often known to be medical conditions that are associated with specific signs and symptoms. A disease may be caused by external factors such as pathogens or by internal dysfunctions". So we will have to put up with it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has the format here changed?

I notice both after logging in and out, the viewing and editing format is quite different now. Is there anyway I can select the previous format before the change?--NadirAli (talk) NadirAli (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NadirAli It might be the new Vector skin being applied. You can go to your preferences (now called "my settings") and select Legacy Vector. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NadirAli: I saw the same thing, and put back the other format. One day when I'm not busy, I think I'll take a look at the new one, though. It looked like it had some interesting differences. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was confused by the new lay-out. I couldn't find basic things. How am I, a reader of English, to know that a figure of a paw with a v next to it is the key to the hidden wonders of Simple English Wikipedia? Fortunately, there was a button to return to the previous set-up. Will new users be better served by this slimmed-down page? Was it tested on non- / new users? 164.47.179.32 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Fehufanga: yes that seems to be it. I tried what you instructed and it seems to be fixed. Much appreciation to you.--NadirAli (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confused

When i was created 2022 Whatsapp Outage, but she put quick deletion, it's says "test page". But it's not a test page. What are you talking about? Bakhos2010 (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bakhos2010 Good question. You can use WP:Deletion review to ask for it to be restored.
@Derpdart56 and Macdonald-ross: Why did you think this was a test page? -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't a test page, I should have sent it to RFD. My bad. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Derpdart56: OK. Why did you think it should be deleted? -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The event didn't seem notable to me. Derpdart56 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusion on whether article was forked

On wikipedia, forking means to copy and changed. MTV Live (Canadian TV channel) looks like it was forked. I don’t know if this should be deleted. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 02:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)SikiWtideIReply[reply]

@SikiWtideI: The article was deleted. It is common for people to copy articles from other Wikipedias to create articles here. That is okay if complex text is simplified and attribution is given. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving Biology pages

I'm new to editing Simple Wikipedia. The biology pages I've looked at often retain all the jargon, but define it in simpler language, and I've been replacing this with explanations that don't use the jargon at all (maybe adding a list of technical terms at the end). Is that appropriate> More generally, for pages about scientific topics, is it appropriate to simplify the science that's being explained as well as the language used to explain it? Thanks. Rosieredfield (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosieredfield: That's not one of the solutions we usually go with (this discussion comes up from time to time). If by "jargon" you mean a scientific term, then there's no problem with using it. Link it, even if the link is red (meaning that we don't have an article). Then you can also explain it in simple language, which is especially needed if we don't have an article. After all, we do have articles on the scientific terms, so we should link to them as appropriate. What we don't usually do is have any kind of glossary at the end.
Another solution people sometimes use is to link the term to a Simple English Wiktionary entry, but let me put in my two cents against that. We want terms to link to articles here whenever possible. If we link to Wiktionary because there's no article here, then if/when an article is later created those links may never be found and replaced with article links.
Since you're new here, you might like to look at this list I maintain of things here that are different from other Wikipedias. The list itself is not a policy or guideline, but it does link to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Rosieredfield (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with InternetArchiveBot

I noticed that InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly duplicating text on List of suicide crisis lines (history). Does anyone know why? Lights and freedom (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lights and freedom Oh, oh dear. Seems it first happened in August. I've copied the table from enwiki (simplifications pending), and see if that still triggers the bot. I'm going to ask around about this. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 05:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Issue is now tracked at phabricator.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 05:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sudden lack of editors

I've noticed that in the past few months a lot of the major simplewiki editors (eg. BRPEver, PDL, TDKR, MrMeAndMrMe) all have became much less active or quit (in TDKRs case, he will retire in a few months, and in PDLs case he was indefinitely blocked). This worries me, is there a cause? Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lallint: Summer holidays? Normal attrition? Maybe if you ping them here they will respond for themselves. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may also become more and more inactive over the next months, but I won't be gone, I still look at the Wikipedia pages and I am up to date mostly with what is going on, you just won't see me editing as much if I am unable. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 00:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am always around checking things and can easily be reached via email or in IRC. I have been busy IRL and will be for next 2-3 months. I am expecting to be more active from January.--BRP ever 02:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do have some big holes in our armoury. The biggest one I've found recently is our poor coverage of the struggle between the brand-new USA with the Spanish crown. This raged from the Philippines to Central America and the early U.S.A. All the pages dealing with the early USA need looking at.
Also, we can't be happy with our accounts of Eastern Europe, although Poland has had a lot of attention over the past few years.
I would dearly love to see less attention paid to worthless trashy individuals, and more attention to topics which can educate the next generation. Dream on... Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I do think that while we do not really have a lack of editors and this is not an extremely important issue, I do think editor retention is important if we want to improve and create more articles, and I think the comment describing editors as worthless and trashy is unnecessary. --Ferien (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, I did not describes the editors as worthless and trashy!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, apologies for misreading your comment. --Ferien (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: Probably each of us has topics we think too much attention is paid to and other topics we think deserve more attention. I certainly do, although I'm not going to specify because I don't want to discourage article creation in general. I just keep reminding myself that everyone here is a volunteer and works on things that they're interested in (excluding people who aren't here to help build the wiki, of course). -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Who are some worthless trashy individuals? That's kind of rude. Nobody is worthless and all contributions matter. SoyokoAnis - talk 12:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do need to write more simply. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint: To me, it feels like the community has grown quite a bit over the past year or so. Perhaps people are just becoming more busy. I don't think it's something to worry about a lot. People edit when they have time... Some people might be really active at some times and inactive at other times. There are certainly more people actively editing here than when I started editing a couple of years ago. --Ferien (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint It doesn’t help with the Super Mario Effect either or just general a**hole admins. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:51DF:31A:7008:FD44 (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really have much time anymore for editing, what with school and other things. I have also lost a lot of interest editing and I think I might have burned myself out with Wikipedia too quickly. I probably won't be active anymore, just an FYI, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 12:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MrMeAndMrMe, even if you're not quitting editing altogether, I'd just like to say thank you for all the work you have done here, particularly all the help you offered at DYK earlier this year. --Ferien (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP Blocks in wikis

I have been blocked from editing when I log out by accident on this wiki, the English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. I don’t know what “Long term abuse” is here, since I didn’t do anything to this website until I decided to make an account. Why are there blocks? SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 02:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)SikiWtideIReply[reply]

@SikiWtideI It sounds like you are affected by a global block. It's likely that you're not the specific target of that block. Sometimes, IP addresses are blocked globally (that is, on all Wikimedia projects) because they have been abused (such as by making vandalism, disruptive editing, etc). You can read more about Long-term abuse on the English Wikipedia. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that happened to me once when I tried to log in at a university. All it meant was that someone at the university had been making trouble. It was nothing to do with me. I logged in on another network and it was fine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Comment for a RfC template

The idea here

Basically similar to a rfd, but brings more attention to other issues that are not addressed by a RfD.

What if someone wants to remove a section (for reasons)? They can't just post a topic on the talk page, mostly because who is going to notice? That's the point of a RfC template. Angerxietythe ediot (chat?contribs to society) 05:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, that is exactly what talk pages are for (among other things). Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might be helpful because it could clarify when a discussion is open and when it is closed. Once it is closed, an administrator (or someone else) could decide on the consensus result, like an RfD. This would be better than many discussions in which discussion stops without a consensus being reached. That way the consensus decision could be applied when the discussion is over. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Research on how people use Simple Wikipedia?

Can anyone point me to research into how people find (or fail to find) Simple Wikipedia articles? Is there concern that people who would benefit from these articles don't know they exist, and/or discussion of how to improve this? Rosieredfield (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I teach EFL (English as a foreign language) and ESL (English as a second language). Most of my students have been unaware of Simple Wikipedia until I tell them about it. After that, many of them regularly use it. Maybe talking it up at EFL/ESL conferences would help increasing its visibility. Kdammers (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosieredfield: Do you mean finding an article once they're already looking at Simple English Wikipedia, or finding Simple English Wikipedia in the first place? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latter. Nobody I've talked to even knows that it exists. Rosieredfield (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about some ideas here for a project to get the word out? Kdammers (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I talked to someone who'd experienced cognitive issues after a serious illness. I told this person that Simple existed and their eyes LIT UP! Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the responses I gather that nobody knows of any research into how people discover that Simple Wikipedia exists. Rosieredfield (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other language Wikipedias

Is there a quick and easy way to change to other Wikipedias from the home page or from 'My changes ' page? Kdammers (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could change the "simple" in the URL to another link like "en" or "es", but that's the only way I'm aware of. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 22:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kdammers and MrMeAndMrMe: You can use "In other languages" on the side of screen on the home page but that option isn't available from the "My changes" page. --Ferien (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New discussion: adding documentation to Wikipedia:Categories

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories#Documenting exceptions to 3-entry rule. Comments are welcome, especially from editors who have been around long enough to have seen what exceptions we've allowed to the 3-entry rule. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6, am I allowed to make comments? Although I was there a long time as TTP but now I access through this account. Dibyojyotilet's chat 10:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DRC-B5: Anyone is allowed to make comments. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move needed

From Marc Spector to Moon Knight. Moon Knight already exists as a redirect to the television series. As with most super hero characters, their common name and page name is their superhero identity and not their "real" name. Spiderman, Batman and Superman, not Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent. Their "real" name is redirected to their better known costumed identity. The same would apply here. Wikidata agrees with this as most of the 37 pages on the subject are all at Moon Knight. No move button here and it is a move over redirect so help is needed 2600:8805:2719:9E00:E7ED:8D4D:457D:301A (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense to me, so done. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 07:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing Dinosaur page title

I want to align the title with En wiki, because theirs is correct. "Dinosaur" is not a taxonomic term and therefore should not be italicised in the title or text. Sounds silly, but I can't find a way of getting rid of the italics in the title. Help! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Macdonald-ross:  Done I removed the "italictitle" template and now the title is not in italics. --IWI (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so simple! I could do with a few extra IQ points today. Thank you! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add this

Add your template here stating that this is a globally banned user - Velimir Ivanović. Cheers. Sadko (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadko, replaced with {{locked global account}}. We could add a sock template here, and I don't oppose anyone else doing that, but I find it's generally best not to tag socks of globally banned editors. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's fine, thank you. Best. Sadko (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out-of-date sports templates

While processing Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Template:Naft Masjed Soleyman F.C. squad, I noticed that we had some association football templates that were out of date. They were "current squad" templates that had either zero or only one blue link. That made them look unuseful, but in fact they were made useful by just updating them.

This shows that we have a maintenance "opportunity" here. The templates for current squads need periodic updating. Some of the ones in question used Template:Football squad, which has "current squad" right in the heading. I don't know if there are other templates (for football or any other sport) that might need regular updating.

I'm just bringing this to people's attention in case there are people who would like to check our templates to make sure that they are up to date, and that after being brought up to date they:

  1. Contain enough blue links
  2. Are added to/removed from the appropriate articles

This might be a problem for us if we don't have enough people interested in working on sports articles. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to attend “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter” Sessions

Hello all,

During the 2022 Wikimedia Summit, the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) presented the first outline of the Movement Charter, giving a glimpse on the direction of its future work, and the Charter itself. The MCDC then integrated the initial feedback collected during the Summit. Before proceeding with writing the Charter for the whole Movement, the MCDC wants to interact with community members and gather feedback on the drafts of the three sections: Preamble, Values & Principles, and Roles & Responsibilities (intentions statement). The Movement Charter drafts will be available on the Meta page here on November 14, 2022. Community wide consultation period on MC will take place from November 20 to December 18, 2022. Learn more about it here.

With the goal of ensuring that people are well informed to fully participate in the conversations and are empowered to contribute their perspective on the Movement Charter, three “Ask Me Anything about Movement Charter" sessions have been scheduled in different time zones. Everyone in the Wikimedia Movement is invited to attend these conversations. The aim is to learn about Movement Charter - its goal, purpose, why it matters, and how it impacts your community. MCDC members will attend these sessions to answer your questions and hear community feedback.

The “Ask Me Anything” sessions accommodate communities from different time zones. Only the presentation of the session is recorded and shared afterwards, no recording of conversations. Below is the list of planned events:

  • Asia/Pacific: November 4, 2022 at 09:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Chinese and Japanese.
  • Europe/MENA/Sub Saharan Africa: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Arabic, French and Russian.
  • North and South America/ Western Europe: November 12, 2022 at 15:00 UTC (your local time). Interpretation is available in Spanish and Portuguese.

On the Meta page you will find more details; Zoom links will be shared 48 hours ahead of the call.

Call for Movement Charter Ambassadors

Individuals or groups from all communities who wish to help include and start conversations in their communities on the Movement Charter are encouraged to become Movement Charter Ambassadors (MC Ambassadors). MC Ambassadors will carry out their own activities and get financial support for enabling conversations in their own languages. Regional facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance team are available to support applicants with MC Ambassadors grantmaking. If you are interested please sign up here. Should you have specific questions, please reach out to the MSG team via email: strategy2030@wikimedia.org or on the MS forum.

We thank you for your time and participation.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Broken wikt link

This template seems to screw up previews, causing the text to be red in the preview (As seen in Revolver (Beatles album), hover over the link to see the preview), instead of uncolored as it would be if you were to just normally link it. The only reason it exists is to add it to a category for broken Wiktionary links, but I see no reason in having this. I can't nominate it for deletion because the page is protected. Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 00:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ferien I believe you were removing transclusions of this template a while ago, correct?
Currently there are 131 transclusions to this template. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 01:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fehufanga, yes. A long time ago there was a bot that would automatically update and remove the template if there was a Wiktionary entry but that bot is no longer running so a lot of "broken links" built up that weren't actually broken. --Ferien (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lallint: To respond to the original post, the text is supposed to be red to show that the page doesn't exist on Wiktionary. Crosswiki linking doesn't display whether a link is "broken" or not, and we use Wiktionary links a lot so I imagine this template was created to make the reader aware that a page doesn't exist, and the category helps editors find new Wiktionary entries we should create. There also used to be a bot that added/removed the template depending on whether the link was broken or not. --Ferien (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French commune pages being created by an IP

An IP editor from switzerland appears to be creating French commune pages. Can someone double check to make sure this isn't GYH's bot running on an IP? Derpdart56 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Derpdart56, which IP is this? --Ferien (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP is 2A02:21B0:644D:B92F:78D6:7F59:F477:3FCC. @Ferien Derpdart56 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Derpdart56, I had asked on IRC to see if it wasn't just me thinking this was block evasion, and as you think it is as well, I have gone ahead and blocked. --Ferien (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need some assistance

Hello! I need help in my upcoming article "1st Provisional Marine Brigade", and I know the secret to making a good article, getting others to help you. It is impossible for me to make one good article that has no flaws, so I request that people start helping me in Here! Thank you! Yodas henchman (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yodas henchman I've made some minor edits, but you should probably look at some of the other articles about similar topics and the MOS before writing an article this big. It's good that you created it in your sandbox though, instead of just creating it. With how long it is, if it gets simplified and wikified, it could easily be a good article. Also, on Wikipedia, you will notice a lot of editors are boring and professional. Don't feel intimidated, most of them are nice. Lallint (talk) 🍔cheesborger🍔 20:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, well thanks for the advice. I'm doing it like in this orderː
1. Make the text and stuff
2. Add references
3. Simplify some things
4. Add links
But either way thanksǃ Yodas henchman (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another IP address problem

This is mostly for the CheckUsers here, but I accidentally must have logged out after a while by default and made some edits under this IP. Hope there’s no misunderstanding. It also seems that the global block is deleted? SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 04:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]