Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 149

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the policy on updating the store logo? As the one on the page is out of date. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

つがる, as long as it exists on this wiki, you're free to update it to the latest version. --Ferien (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ferien. I'm not sure if it's on commons though, as there is likely a copyright for the logo. Apparently, with the old Zellers logo, HBC didn't renew the trademark and now there is a lawsuit going on because someone tried registering the trademark. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay so this is the current logo and the file is on commons here. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Board of Trustees have ratified the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello all, an important update on the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:

The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.

As the support increased, this signifies to the Board that the current version has addressed some of the issues indicated during the last review in 2022. The Board of Trustees voted to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines. The resolution can be found on Foundation wiki and you can read more about the process behind the 2023 Enforcement Guidelines review on Diff.

There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania 2023 Welcoming Program Submissions

Wikimedia Singapore Logo.svg

Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs) 15:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contributions transfer

Hello! Can someone, maybe an oversighter, transfer my unregistered contribs to my registered? Unregistered: Special:Contribs/2607:fea8:551d:2e00:0:0:0:0/64 Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 01:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-oversighter observation) That isn't possible. You can have your unregistered contributions have their IP address oversighted, I think that's pretty much what can happen. Justarandomamerican (Discuss!) 01:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
umm... okay? so all i do is leave my unregistered contribs, right? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I think you can email an oversighter and have them oversighted, but you can also leave them as is. Justarandomamerican (Discuss!) 01:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncategorised articles

I have come across several. Do we have a list, or any other means of locating them? Rathfelder (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special:UncategorizedPages lists articles that don't have any categories at all. (There are similar special pages for categories and templates.) However, that special page doesn't list articles that are essentially uncategorized but have maintenance or stub categories. Every once in a while I take a maintenance or stub category and look for pages that need content categories, but it's a big task. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. How are people supposed to find it? Why cant I put it on my watchlist? Rathfelder (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find it like this:
  • From any page, click on "Special pages". You'll find that link along the left side of the page under Tools. (At least, that's where it is in the skin that I use.)
  • Under Maintenance reports, click on Uncategorized pages.
Special pages can't be watched like "real" pages. You could watch Category:Category needed, but that page is populated when people notice that a page needs categories so it might not have everything. On the other hand, it's more likely to include pages that have maintenance and/or stub categories but which need regular content categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I found Bagmati Provincial Assembly uncategorised, but not on that list. Any idea why? Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That page has some maintenance categories on it. They're hidden categories, though, so maybe your preferences aren't set to show them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cant see any way of changing my preferences. Where should I look?Rathfelder (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many DYK nominations...

Hello all, I just wanted to point out that there are many DYK nominations, if anyone feels like reviewing please do. Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They all look great, Eptalon! What would you like me to do as far as reviewing is concerned? Blissyu2 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases

Hello, the article Catholic Church sexual abuse cases was recently up for deletion, but it ended up being kept, after I copied over (and did some simplification) the EnWP article. I am currently the only editor to have touched the article (after the copying). Note that the subject is controversial, so it is important that statements are well-sourced. Nevertheless, many sections still look complex to me. Eptalon (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a Fool!

Happy 04/01! 872 863 880 863 876 - 865 873 872 872 859 - 865 867 880 863 - 883 873 879 - 879 874 Operator873 connect 06:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What the hell? This is all messed up lol! Is that the joke? Blissyu2 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Is there something that you needed help with? --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small reminder

Hello everyone, it will soon be April 1st in UTC. For some, this day is known also as April Fools. This is a reminder that if you are going to make an April Fools joke, please stay away from reader-facing pages such as the article namespace, DYK, and the template namespace. If you want to make a joke, you can do it on your user page/subpage. Thanks! — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 23:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, dang! I missed 1/4. :( --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking through the recent changes and noticed that this innocuous article about the economy of USA in the 1920s has some level of a dispute surrounding it, with one IP editor seeming to want things one way and not being happy with what anyone else does. I was wondering if someone could have a look at it. Thanks. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed: Bathyphysa conifera

We recently got Bathyphysa conifera which has an almost identical article at enwp. It is a deep-sea creature, and was first described in the 1870s. Not much seems to be known. I cut out some highly-technical description, but I think the article needs more simplification; references would also help. Eptalon (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eptalon, do you have a source for it being first described in the 1870s? The articles here and on enWikipedia say that it was nicknamed the Flying Spaghetti Monster by "the oil workers who first saw it." The source for this is a Washington Post article from 2015, but from the context of the article I think it's talking about a specific sighting, not the first time it was discovered. This should be reworded if it was known about as early as you state. HerrWaus (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no I don't Eptalon (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming community review of the Movement Charter ratification methodology

Hello everyone,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) will propose a ratification methodology for the future Movement Charter on April 10, 2023. The proposed ratification methodology is a result of learnings from previous ratification processes.

The MCDC will organize a consultation period with the Wikimedia Movement to hear feedback on the proposed ratification methodology from April 10 to 28, 2023. People will be invited to share their feedback on the questions mainly via the Meta Talk page discussion, on the Movement Strategy Forum, and during the community conversation hours. The MCDC welcomes your input on some open questions.

Join the community conversation hours

The MCDC invites everyone interested in sharing their feedback on the proposed methodology to join the community conversation hours:

When signing up, please leave a comment if you need language support. Please note that language interpretation will be provided if there are at least 3 people interested in a given language.

Thank you,

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot to add and remove protection templates

EnWP has en:User:MusikBot II/FixPP, which adds and removes protection templates. It automatically adds {{pp}} and similar templates when a page is protected, and removes them when protection ends. Should such a bot be run at SimpleWP too? I'm not volunteering to do it myself, but I think it could be better than the current system. Individual users have to add and remove the templates, sometimes weeks after the change in protection. The bot code already exists, which might make it easier, although I don't know much about wikibots. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is worth noting that the template will automatically not display an icon on unprotected pages, although it could be useful for categorisation and such. I would not be opposed to such a bot, if someone volunteered to run it. --IWI (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have looked at a few, tell me where it is. Can we get language-adapted templates? Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon If you're looking for the code, it's at GitHub. The link is on the bot's user page. The templates just look like padlock icons, so I don't think anything would have to be adapted (except some things might be different, like extended-confirmed protection doesn't exist here). Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have actually thought about creating a bot for this myself, but haven't started coding it yet. --Ferien (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now created User:FerienBot2 for this, and put a request about it on Wikipedia talk:Bots. --Ferien (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Islam Sallute (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you want to tell us? Eptalon (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Switch to new system for GAs/VGAs

Hello all, we have discussed this before, and I would like to switch to the new system for GA/VGAs

  1. 1 week to decide if the article meets all except at most 2 criteria of the GA/VGA criteria
  2. 1-2 weeks to fix remaining issues.
  3. 1 week vote that it meets all critera, and can be promoted.

Steps 1 and 3 end with a vote; as everywhere else, minimum 5 votes, 60% support (for the 5 vote scenario, this is a simple majority), any admin can close (judging consensus)

I would like to implement this: All existing candidates have been sitting there longer than three weeks, so they start at item 3

Eptalon (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote ends: April 8 (next Saturday)... Eptalon (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we have fewer TLAs please? Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
whats a TLA? Eptalon (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Searching up, it appears to be Three Letter Abbreviation. But I thought GAs and VGAs were fairly well known as Good Articles and Very Good Articles... --Ferien (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow I am happy to see Emu War in that list as I helped a bit with that one. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not clear how the new rules work for demotion. Do there have to be 5 votes and 60% support for keeping it at GA/VGA to prevent demotion? Or is 60% required to demote it? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At demotion, the default is to demote. so unless we get the 5 votes, and from their comments it is clear that at least 3 oppose demotion, we demote? - So when commenting, ideally you write more than support or oppose, so that whoever closes, sees what you meant. Or do other people see that differently? Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or should we demote, when 3/5 support demotion, and otherwise do nothing? Eptalon (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One day left: Yellowstone national Park: 3 votes, all support (5 needed?), Megadeath: 1 suppport (of 5). The GodFather: 3 support/1 oppose, all old. All other artcles have no votes that I can see; which means they'll lose their candidate status (or likely get demoted) in a day.--Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for bringing this forward again. The process has not been working for a long time. Nothing wrong with not promoting an article. It can always be revised and resubmitted, which is not a big deal if the process moves in weeks instead of months. --Gotanda (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder how many editors have seen this change? I didn't see it for over a week. I expect everyone was used to the old slow process. Do not see a lot of action pro or con on these. --Gotanda (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot do any mole-whacking, I can only post to this board. From the responses on the respective pages, I'd say 3-5 people. So far there are two, perhaps three articles that get a higher participation. But what do you expect, the articles we have "in the queue" have been sitting there for months. DYK gets a lot more participation, probably because finding an intersting fact that is supported by sources is much less work than getting an article meet 10 criteria. Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it ok to let the editors of an article know directly, or is that advocating too much? I would do it in a neutral manner. --Gotanda (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think it is important to get the things sorted, some articles are like two votes away from the minimum 5 votes. When you do, please try to be as neutral as possible, perhaps point to this thread? Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pinged people who had edited or commented without mentioning any specific articles and linked to this thread. I also indicated that !voting up or down was helpful to get to the five, so no direct requests for particular votes. Hope a few more people can weigh in. Then, we can keep this expedited process moving in the future. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect categories with content

Is Redirect categories with content bugged? None of the tagged articles have content in them. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have Cewbot on this wiki?

We aren't supposed to use interlanguage links in articles but do we have Cewbot to get rid of ones linking to an existing article? I want to use them in userspace for articles that I am planning on making and have it clean them up. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 07:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know about Cewbot. We used to have a bot that would establish links if it saw an interwiki in an article, but it wouldn't remove it from the article.
It's not that hard to do them manually, though. Click on "Add links" in the left column (under "Languages"), fill in the two fields, and hit Enter. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To my knowledge, there's no bot adding interwiki links... Eptalon (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 I'm talking about the Template:Interlanguage link which can be a bit cumbersome to remove on your own, hence why on English wikipedia they are automatically removed by cewbot
An example would be that I have the article Yatagarasu which I want to include on this wiki. So I put it there and it shows up as a red link until the article is made here.
I believe it is against the rules of this wiki to use the template, but it is used over 500 times on this wiki, and I believe part of why it is still used is that it's a pesky template to remove from articles. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: Thanks, I forgot about that template. (There are 825 transclusions here, by the way.)
We do have Cewbot, but I don't know if it's approved for this task on this wiki. The task isn't listed on the bot's user page. I would say the steps to get it running here would be:
  1. Make sure no one objects to having the function here.
  2. If no one objects, contact the bot owner to see if they're willing to this function here.
  3. If they're willing, have them make a request to add the function. Thats usually done at Wikipedia talk:Bots.
I don't know about anything forbidding the use of this template, but I have always understood that there should not be inline external links in articles. However, I don't see that in a policy or guideline right now, so I'm not sure. If a policy/guideline can be found, that would support adding this function to the bot. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 if it is not forbidden then I might want to use it to mark pages I want to make later, and have the bot remove the template when they exist. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know whether there's a guideline about this, but I think the use of the template is a great idea until the article is created here. I don't know why anyone would oppose it! It provides additional information, while also making clear that it's on a different Wikipedia, and still leaves the red link indicating that the Simple article needs to be created. (If you're just talking about removing the template when the article is created here, then that would be good.) Lights and freedom (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are quite a few pages like Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2016 on the red list. They arent really wanted. They come from links on templates, I think. Does anyone know how to get rid of them? Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of countries by continents

I think this list should be rewritten to be simpler and show the flag of each country. If you agree or disagree, please comment at Talk:List of countries by continents#Rewrite. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Puppet state

An IP wants to make changes to that page, see Talk:Puppet state. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Looks like a POV fork to me. Blissyu2 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elections Committee: Call for New Members

Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation elections committee (Elections Committee) is, from today until April 24, seeking an additional 2–4 members to help facilitate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee (Board) selection process.

The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election is being planned. New members are invited to join the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee oversees the Board of Trustees community seat selection process. Join the committee and contribute your valuable skills and ideas to the Trustee selection process.

There are eight community- and affiliate-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board. The wider Wikimedia community votes for community members to occupy these seats. In 2024, the Elections Committee will oversee this selection process for the community- and affiliate-selected seats with expiring terms. This process will be supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Elections Committee members sign up for three-year terms and will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Members can expect to contribute 2–5 hours per week before the selection process and 5–8 hours per week during the selection process.

As an Elections Committee member, you will be responsible for:

  • Attending online meetings between now and the next election (mid-2024)
  • Attending onboarding and online training in May–June 2023
  • Working with the Committee to fulfill its other responsibilities

New members should have the following qualities:

  • Fluency in English
  • Responsiveness to email collaboration
  • Knowledge of the movement and movement governance

If you would like to volunteer for this role, please submit your candidacy by April 24, 2023 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth) on this Meta-Wiki page.

You can read the full announcement here. Thank you in advance for your interest! If you are not interested but know someone who might be, share this message with them. Please let me know if you have questions.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminism and Folklore 2023!

Tomorrow is the last day to submit content for the Feminism and Folklore contest! Congrats to everyone who made our readers such great content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New category for neurodevelopmental disorders?

I was thinking of creating a new category Category:Neurodevelopmental disorders , but first I want to ask if it's a good idea. This would contain Autism, Speech disorders, ADHD, Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Tourette syndrome, Intellectual disability, Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, Learning disability, Fetal alcohol syndrome, Developmental coordination disorder, and Stereotypic movement disorder. It would be within Category:Diseases and disorders of the brain, Category:Disorders, Category:Disability, and Category:Mental illnesses.

See here: en:Neurodevelopmental disorder.

The reasons I ask are:

  1. Is it a good idea to group all these things together?
  2. Some people might dislike labeling autism as a disorder. If autism is in this category, should it be in another category too?
  3. Would it make sense to put this category inside Category:Mental illnesses?

Thanks. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If those things are all neurodevelopmental disorders, then it would be OK to group them together. I'd have to research to know if they all are -- I'd probably just use enwiki as a guide for that. Where it comes to speech disorders, though, aren't there some that are physical (due to physical problems with the mouth, for example) rather than neurodevelopmental?
As for categorizing, it seems to me that not all of those would be disabilities, and some might not be mental illnesses. (I think there's a difference between mental illness and mental disorder.) Therefore, you might need to apply those categories individually. instead of to the whole group. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speech disorders, dislexia (reading problems), dysgraphia (writing problems) are not necessarily mental illnesses, I think. Eptalon (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an alternate account to banned user User:Lachskai. Do we ban again or? I don't know what to do in this situation (I never dealt with a situation) - Angerxiety! 13:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

o ye WP:RfCU lol Angerxiety! 13:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I change a category name?

I made the category Category:Categorization of Shinto Shrines based on the english wikipedia one, but it was renamed to Category:Shinto shrines by ranking there, so can we rename it here too? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle: The category can be renamed to the name you give, except that having "by ranking" in the name implies that it is a parent category. Parent categories can contain only other categories, but this category has some individual articles in it. I removed the articles that have same-named categories, but there are still a few left.
The way to rename a category is to move it. You should be able to do that. If you would like someone to do it for you, let us know; otherwise I will leave it for you in case you would like to see how it works for yourself. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 I fixed it. Does it change the links to the category? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: You still have to move the entries to the new category. I see you're taking care of that, so I'll leave you to it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: If you mean the Wikidata links, yes it changes that for you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Home" tab

What's this "Home" tab on Wikipedia? And it takes you to some sort of page looking like profile settings in a community forum? [1] is the image. I wasn't able to use Commons because I was talk-page blocked and I found it unfair. But I shouldn't evade it. Anyways, now that I'm using another tool, well can someone help me with what that image is? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 22:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The homepage tab is kind of like a jumping of point for changing articles, while it is unrequired it definitely helps newer editors with finding the right pages and editing types for them. FusionSub (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphs disabled

I just learned that the graph extension was disabled by MediaWiki. See here: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Graph_extension_disabled_per_immediate effect. This created Category:Pages with disabled graphs, which only contains one page on this wiki, but {{Annual readership}} is now broken too, and there may be other problems. See the Phabricator box for tracking. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not simple enough

I've noticed that Equinox (celestial coordinates) has not been simplified much. I'm leaving it here for discussion on what should be done to simplify it, because it was created by a user who's making a lot of pages, and personally, I'm not entirely sure how much simpler it SHOULD be. Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was me, I simplfied it a bit more. You or anyone can check it if its simpler now. Koqkpa talk 09:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You replaced some words with simpler words, but the sentences are still long and complex. I think it's still hard to read in general. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it should be simpler, but I don't have time to work on it right now. For now, I've tagged it as complex. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

MediaWiki message delivery 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Other wikis have written agreed policies. On this wiki I have been repeatedly told "We dont do that round here" when there is no sign of a policy. Anyone can say "We dont do that round here". Its a fundamentally elitist approach and a contradiction of the policies of the organisation. Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, we don't do policies 'round these parts.
obviously a joke Angerxiety! 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the top of this page at the moment there is a discussion about adding WP:KIND to the policies. FusionSub (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help Wanted: French Revolution

Currently, the page on the French Revolution is not good. This is an important historical event, and in comparison to similar pages (American Revolution, Seven Years War) it has barely any information. I am planning to work on it so it is better. If anybody wants to help me add content and make it a better page, I would appreciate it. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needless list

I was going through the articles to be copyedited category, and I found List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Based on the title, it's a breach of Wikipedia is not a directory, so what should I do with it? It's pointless, and impossible, to list every single traffic collision. One crash happens every 6 minutes, anyways. Should I rename it to a list of notable car accidents from 2000 onwards? Midknight1342 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Midknight1342: English Wikipedia has an equivalent list, but if you want you can bring this to RfD to see if people support deleting it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting the Patroller right

Hello Simple Wikipedia community,

I am requesting your opinion on splitting the patroller right into auto-patrolled and patroller. Looking in the WP:Requests for permissions/Patroller archives, it appears most requests are denied because the user hasn’t created enough articles for autopatrolled, but would still be a great patroller. I believe splitting this right, like many other wikis have, would better equip users to patrol edits. If this would pass, current Patrollers would be given both rights. What do you think? Illusion Flame (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what it would take to do this, but I think it would be helpful. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t know either. Can bureaucrats edit user rights, or is that just stewards? Illusion Flame (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Illusion Flame You need to open a ticket at phabricator with the site requests tag. This would require consensus. I have no comments on the idea itself for now. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for explaining the possible implementation of this request. I understand that this requires consensus, which is why I posted it here for the community to discuss. You say you have no comments on the idea. Are there any reasons you would oppose? I want to hear feedback. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say that if we split this right, we would still need to see good articles created by the people who get it. To patrol properly, you need to understand whether an article is written in the kind of simple language required here. The way we see that people understand that is to see articles that they write. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I partially agree, but I believe there are other ways then writing articles. One being appropriate CSD tagging and RFD voting. These show that you know what does and doesn’t belong. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historically, the answer to this has been that people who are not able to adequately write content (in line with our policies) cannot adequately determine whether an article is consistent with our policies. I still generally agree with this. Please note that the patrol permission does not allow people to patrol edits; we don't have FlaggedRevs here. It allows people to mark unpatrolled pages as patrolled, and is inherently linked to the ability to create and evaluate article content.
In comparing our situation to the English Wikipedia's (where there are separate user groups)...there are a few considerations. First, they actually seek to patrol every new article. In other words, people with patrol but not autopatrol require other patrollers to review their creations. It's not too much of a burden there. We do not have the capacity to do this here, and should be focusing our patrolling efforts on the content that needs the most help. People who have article-writing experience sufficient for patrol might as well have both autopatrol and patrol, to avoid potentially wasting time of other patrollers. If the combined threshold for the two roles is too high, we can discuss that rather than trying to decouple the two roles.
Second...understanding how to ensure an article is written in Simple English, and thus okay to mark as patrolled, is a pretty high bar. We'd need to see a good amount of article writing prior to granting patrol, imo about the same as for granting autopatrol. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At present this is useless because it is blocked by hundreds of links generated by templates imported from other wikis with no attempt to adapt them to this wiki. When I have edited those templates to try to make the list useable there have been complaints. Is it an agreed policy that we leave templates generating thousands of red links?

For example Template:Gers communes generates several hundred red links to potential articles about French villages. The articles which actually exist mostly are along the lines of Berdoues is a commune in the Gers department. It is in southwestern France. I dont see the ambition to include a few hundred more articles like that as being a priority. This wikipedia is never going to have the millions of articles that would be required. Rathfelder (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree; it's useless. However the template doesn't make sense if it doesn't include all the communes. If there's some way to exclude articles on templates from special:wantedpages, that would be a lot better. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could Template:Link if exists help with this? For those who may not know, that template can be used to generate a link if a page exists and plain text if it doesn't exist. That way we would still see the names of the places we don't have articles for, but Special:WantedPages would not reflect the use in the template. I've never used the template myself, and I have the following questions:
  • Would the template appear to link to the page anyway, even if the doesn't exist, just because the code for a link is in the template?
  • Would this be a performance issue, perhaps generating too many calls to... something?
This could be a bit of work to implement, but it's an idea. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would somewhat defeat the purpose of having a red link to encourage creation. Personally I don't really think Special:WantedPages is all the useful even if the links weren't there, because I suspect there are very few people that will create articles just because they are wanted based what I have seen such as how long our wanted ones usually sit on Recent Changes. People tend to just edit the subjects they want to edit. In regards to never having millions of articles There is no deadline. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldn't defeat the purpose, because we would still see links not coming from the navbox. In case I wasn't clear, I was only thinking of using Template:Link if exists in the navbox, not on red links in other places. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, my point was the red link wouldn't be on the navbox, where it can be seen then created. I think the red link being visible in the subject area related to it is far more valuable than it showing up (or not) in a list that the vast majority of readers will never see. -Djsasso (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:Link if exists sounds quite positive. I think we need to think more about the needs of readers and a bit less about the needs of editors. A template with loads of red links is not useful to readers at all. If a template is essentially a list of articles that exist on another wiki why do we need it on a template here? And I doubt if a template with a list of hundreds of villages would be very useful to most readers anyway even if they were all real articles. Isnt that why we have categories? Categories respond to changes. These templates dont.
I would be quite happy to use Special:WantedPages to direct my attention to articles I might be interested in, and maybe other people would be too, if it wasnt jammed up by templates. The other problem is that it is sorted by the number of links - so it is dominated by the templates. There may well be other articles which deserve more priority than the endless lists of villages, but we cant see them. Surely it should be used to prioritise what needs doing. As it is it is dominated by list-style articles, which dont look to me like a priority. Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are also quite a lot of red links to pages which have been deleted, like Category:Articles needing additional references from February 2015. They are clearly not wanted. Is there any way of getting rid of them? Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair redlinks don't prevent a template from being useful unless the template is only red links. It still contains useful blue links, and lists articles which may be missing allowing a reader to see a gap in our coverage. All of which are useful to the reader. A template doesn't stop being useful just because there are some redlinks on it. To be honest, to me removing them seems to be more for editors sake than readers sake. Categories and navboxes serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive. -Djsasso (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would any reader want to know that there are a couple of hundred Communes of the Gers department without articles, when the articles that do exist merely say that some village is a commune in the Gers department? Rathfelder (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can Special:WantedPages be set up to exclude all pages in talk namespaces? These are pretty much never necessary. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am looking at en:Template:Navbar. It shows a way to customize the view/talk/edit links in navboxes (it's under "Shortcut templates"). This might be helpful with our navbox templates that have no talk pages -- the talk pages would just not be linked. I don't know if our template is currently the same as enwiki's, and I don't know how it's invoked, but this might be worth looking at. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process


As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:

  • Community members in good standing
  • Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
  • Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
  • Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
  • Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
  • Confidently able to communicate in English

The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.

The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocproject(_AT_) by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.

Best regards,

Xeno (WMF) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When having quotes in articles should I "translate" the quotes into basic english or keep them as is? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle: When you directly quote, leave the quote as it is. There are a couple of ways you can explain complex language, though. If you have a specific example in mind, I could make some suggestions. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I provide the exact quote and a translation. See Martin Hemings. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA/VGA process:several demoted/closed, a few still up...


it is really frustrating to see how people don't participate in the GA/VGA process. Two weeks ago, I said people should voice their opinion about the current candidates. They mostly didn't. So what's left:

  • Emu War, as a candidate to GA: was talked about, no visible support votes.
  • Yellowstone National Park (GA candidate): 3 support votes, no opposes; promote?
  • Megadeth (GA candidate): 1 support vote
  • Jupiter (demotion from VGA): 2 votes oppose demotion, one vote supports it.

I have closed all the others. This also resulted in the demotion of Ronald Reagan from VGA, to regular article. Eptalon (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh sorry. I am up for helping. Sorry. I was just a bit confused as to what I was supposed to do. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again: the new process requires that (at the end), people "!vote" as to whether an article should be promoted or not. The minimal result needs 5 valid votes (by named editors); voting is the same as everywhere else. A qualified majority (in general: one more than half of the votes) indicates the result: so for 5 votes, we need 3 in favor. So, for Yellowstone, and Jupiter, we are two votes away. All these articles have been there for months, don't tell me we won't be able to get the two votes; but yes, in general there has been little interest. Eptalon (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Emu War is a good article so Support that one being promoted. I'm not really an expert on the other two topics you mentioned so don't want to comment. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blissyu2 The votes are at WP:Proposed good articles, not here. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emu War has three support: nom (me), DovahFRD, and Blissyu2. Even two "no" votes would put it through at this point. Is five votes too many to expect for this process with how many people we have? Maybe try four votes minimum and a 75% support rate? --Gotanda (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I honestly don't know. I was taking the five votes as this would make it the same as the other processes, mainly RfA. We want to avoid promoting something that isn't ready, but we still don't want the situation that a single oppose kills the nomination. 3 votes, two supporting is a pass, so is 4 votes 3 supporting, or 5 votes with 3 support. With 6 votes, we would need 3 oppose votes to kill the nomination. Eptalon (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just voted to support Emu War. If the nominator counts, then Yellowstone National Park has five supports already. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I think Yellowstone has been at approval for a while now. --Gotanda (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I promoted both, see comment below Eptalon (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emu War and Yellowstone National Park are now Good Articles..

I have just promoted Emu War and Yellowstone National Park to Good Articles. Thank you to everyone who contributed. Good work. Eptalon (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Very Good Articles: Neptune...

Hello, I have re-opened Neptune (as a proposed very good article); Please have a look... Eptalon (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving Jupiter and Neptune

As both Jupiter and Neptune are articles about planets that we want to get to VGA status, and Saturn is also a VGA, they should probably look similar. What content is missing from these articles? If we have facts about mass or volume, do we want to include them in the intro, in a section of the body, or both? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an IP user who has repeatedly added and removed "2023" from the article. They have done this over 10 times. – Angerxiety! 14:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On it. Derpdart56 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format for month deaths pages

I think it would be good to agree on a standard format for the "Deaths in month" pages. I created a sample page at User:Lights and freedom/monthdeaths. Anyone can edit the page if they think the wording or links at the bottom should be different. I hope we can agree on a standard that is best for everyone. Notifying (some) contributors to these pages: @TDKR Chicago 101, ImprovedWikiImprovement, Jim Michael 2, Fehufanga, Auntof6, and Jonny Nixon:

The main things to decide on are the wording at the top, the related pages section, or other links, and the template at the bottom. If this has already been discussed, I apologize. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. I don't recall if it has been discussed before, but I am pretty sure that TDKR who seems to be the main contributor in the area has been working to common format. So would definitely be a good idea to get their input. Although looking at their contribs looks like they have slowed down as of recent. -Djsasso (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TDKR Chicago 101: Do you have any preference? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

End of the Movement Charter ratification methodology community review


The Movement Charter Drafting Committee has concluded its first community review of the methodology draft, which will be used to ratify the Movement Charter in 2024.

This community review included feedback collection on Meta, on the Movement Strategy forum as well as two conversation hours with communities and one conversation with the Committees of the Wikimedia projects. MCDC greatly appreciates everyone's input. The recording of the ratification methodology presentation is here and documentation can be accessed here. The timeline of the next steps of the methodology is provided here.

The WMF support team will produce a report on the community input in May. MCDC will incorporate the feedback and share an updated version of the ratification methodology in August 2023. The MCDC will continue to outreach to stakeholders regarding the updated methodology in late 2023.

Thank you for your participation!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't the civility guideline be switched to a policy, as the enwiki version is? Users should essentially always follow it, and is not really negotiable as it being only a guideline would suggest. Would there be consensus for introducing it as a policy instead? --IWI (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Support. I actually remember a few months back we had a user who was saying he didn't have to follow this because it was a guideline not a policy... --Ferien (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, it shouldn't be just recommended, but mandated. because being civil means to be kind. And being kind is one of the pillars in Wikipedia (see WP:PILLARS) (fourth one) Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 22:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Being civil is not just a suggestion that can be thrown out of the window. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 12:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: If we aren’t civil or kind, our goal of building an encyclopedia cannot be completed. This is a must. Illusion Flame (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment: - What do we have currently? I would like to know what the alternative is before I throw it out. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blissyu2, currently, Wikipedia:Be kind is a guideline. And so at the top of the page Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy. Essentially saying you don't currently have to be civil. --Ferien (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we're voting on changing it from a guideline to a policy then? Okay. As long as I'm clear on that. That seems reasonable then. Thanks. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, that is what we're discussing. --Ferien (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support it absolutely makes sense. Shushugah (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This really needs to be a policy. FusionSub (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This wasn't a policy?? How long was it a guideline? Oh no, no. Angerxiety! 13:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But WP:No personal attacks was a policy. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? - Angerxiety! 17:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Barbara (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done after unanimous community consensus. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates (blue links first)

Please see [2].

Blue links, before red links.--Is there a Wikipedia guideline that forbids that kind of layout? (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "that kind of layout". Do you mean that within each group, the blue-linked items are listed first? It's not forbidden, but I don't think that should be a factor. The items should be listed in some kind of logical order. That could be alphabetical, chronological, or something else. Besides that, if one of the redlinked pages is created, that shouldn't mean having to update the template just because of that. Another factor is that templates here are sometimes refreshed from the enwiki version, so the red and blue links could be mixed again.
By the way, I made a link out of your code so that people could find it more easily. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates full of red links create problems. Why do we need them? Why cant they be unlinked? Many of these templates are clearly imported from other wikis with far more articles than this one is ever likely to have, and they make no concessions to language simplification. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a reason Simple permits red links more than the regular English Wikipedia does: It lets us know which articles are in greatest need of creation and, once they are made, they're immediately non-orphaned. I believe we have a page with the most linked-to red links. I've often gone there when I needed to know which articles needed creating. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean Special:WantedPages? It doesnt show the articles we most need. Its gummed up with links created by templates, many of which are pretty low priority - like the hundreds of red links to French villages. I think links from other articles should be a higher priority, but they generally dont have hundreds of articles pointing to them as some of the template created ones do. Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Partially) gummed up?
43. Torre Pellice‏‎ (271 links)
44. Val di Chy‏‎ (271 links)
90. Volvera‏‎ (270 links)
91. Template talk:Metropolitan City of Turin‏‎ (270 links).

Okay, for today it might be okay to stay away from entry number 43 to entry number 91, on the list. That is if one has no interest in villages in Torino/Turin. 2001:2020:32B:AD46:7CD3:15BF:1C1:E573 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medical sources

I am medical editor on en:wikipedia and we have a policy about newspaper references-we delete them. What is considered a good reference here on Simple Wikipedia for medical topics. Barbara (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My guess would be non or lightly biased scientific test results however, I don't edit medical pages so I am far from knowledgeable on this, this is just my 2 cents. FusionSub (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That really is a difficult question: On the one hand, we want sources that are scientifically accurate. This usually involves a number of terms, which are part of "medical language" that you likely can't do without. On the other hand, when explaining a topic, the linked sources should be easy to understand. Is there a good- "mid-level", of magazines that summarize scienitifdfic texts, but that are still accurate enough, to be worthwile?- I mean, sure you can use "Nature", as a source, but can you use "Scientific American"? - What abut "The Economist"? - What is the rationale behind deleting newspaper references? Eptalon (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some journals are okay (like Nature). Scientific American is not considered a journal. The easiest thing for me to do is personally use the en wp standards for medical articles AND not beat up anyone who may not want to use en wp references. I hope that makes sense. Barbara (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will find a way. Keep in mind that this is Simple English so understandable language is as important as scientific accuracy... Eptalon (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quickest admin right granted

I was looking at WP:CfA one day and I read "There is no set time, but three months is preferred." Does that mean there is a user so helpful they've been granted the admin right before the preferred three months? I'm curious... – Angerxiety! 13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That has happened several times, although it was many years ago. For example, EhJJ (2 months), Jamesofur (2 months), Mentifisto (now Lofty Abyss, < 3 months), Katerenka (now Lauren Ashby, < 3 months). More recently, some users became admins after 4-5 months. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wiki markup

Where can I find and activate "wiki markup"? اربابی دوم (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help:Wiki markup will tell you all types of wiki markup. – Angerxiety! 13:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone for a little GA to VGA improvement? (Mister Rogers)

I had a look at the current list of Good Articles after the last few were added. (Thank you, @Eptalon!) And, Fred Rogers looks pretty close to VGA. Given our remit for children and education, this seems like an obvious candidate. It is also, sadly, unlikely to need much updating so it can be a stable VGA. Needs all the references checked and a bit of simplification here and there, but looks good if anyone else is interested. I'll just plug away at it now and then. --Gotanda (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was quicker than I thought. Thanks for the help. It is up for PVGA, now. --Gotanda (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag editing

I don't see any reasons for users to add or change edit tags. Edit tagging should be done by Edit filters, so that we don't have users adding improper tags to edits and logs ([3], [4]). I'm proposing that the Simple English Wikipedia remove this user right for registered users. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 02:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotta have to agree on that (and I'm one of the named examples!). It's something regular users shouldn't be trusted with, especially when the lone available tag (on my end, at least) labels edits as Possible Vandalism - LTA. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support only allowing auto-confirmed users edit tags. Illusion Flame (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that this is what I am, and I don't trust myself enough to add tags to edits. Maybe an advanced permission could allow changing tags? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don’t trust yourself with tags, then don’t change them… Illusion Flame (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always thought that filters did that. Hm, I agree then. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New PVGA is up: Mister Rogers

I think Fred Rogers is ready for his close-up. Please review and comment. Special thanks to @DovahFRD. --Gotanda (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of countries and dependencies by population

Can we change List of countries and dependencies by population to use the United Nations Population Fund estimates? This would keep the populations up to date with less room for error. It's better than combining info from multiple sources which may not be directly comparable. For example, our current list says China has more people than India, but according to the UN, India is now the most populous country and this is stated at our article India, which results in confusion.

Discuss here. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has been warred over for a few months. The "typical sign of poison suicide" one started back in 29 April and has been reverted and unreverted multiple times. Fehufanga protected the article for 3 days, but they still are changing the page. I think more protection, or even indef protection is needed.

Angerxiety! 07:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a request for the WP:AN. Illusion Flame (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic citations based on ISBN are broken

Apologies if this message does not reach you in your favorite language. You can help translate it centrally at Meta. Thanks for your help.

We have recently become unable to access the WorldCat API which provided the ability to generate citations using ISBN numbers. The Wikimedia Foundation's Editing team is investigating several options to restore the functionality, but will need to disable ISBN citation generation for now.

This affects citations made with the VisualEditor Automatic tab, and the use of the citoid API in gadgets and user scripts, such as the autofill button on refToolbar. Please note that all the other automatic ways of generating citations, including via URL or DOI, are still available.

You can keep updated on the situation via Phabricator, or by reading the next issues of m:Tech News. If you know of any users or groups who rely heavily on this feature (for instance, someone who has an upcoming editathon), I'd appreciate it if you shared this update with them.

Elitre (WMF), on behalf of the Editing team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Triumphalism. The English-wiki article was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumphalism - Wikipedia.--I have looked thru that discussion, and I do not see any clear arguments for why (Simple-wiki or) Wikipedia, can not have an article.--A major hurdle in regard to making a stub: the article has to be more than dicdef/wikipedia:Dicdef; Possible sources for avoiding dicdef:

Hello! Please note this is the Simple English Wikipedia. There is nothing we can do about that discussion here. Try asking one of the users who responded to the deletion discussion there. SoyokoAnis - talk 19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not much point in asking at English-wiki, about possible "arguments for why (Simple-wiki or) Wikipedia, can not have an article".--This thread on Simple-wiki now shows that there has not yet been opposition voiced in regard to a Triumphalism article (as long as one goes beyond dicdef).--Every single point in this thread, has been noted (so there should not be much of a need for repeats). 2001:2020:32F:A754:D068:43F8:E929:806 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we talking about 'U.S. Triumphalism' ( or 'Christian Triumphalism' ( › article › neither-quietism-triumphalism) ? Kdammers (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is Special:Diff/8819586 a ChatGPT edit? It's more complex and the way it's written sounds like that. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know about it being ChaptGPT. I doubt it as ChatGPT normally has references (even though they're fake). This one has no references and appears to be written (in most cases) in Simple-ish English. Further this IP isn't globally blocked or known as a proxy nor has this IP posted on any other Wiki. So it's pretty low risk for ChaptGPT. That said, there are no references and some of what's said may need to be referenced. Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! 17:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names of sections

What do we call "Other articles (on-wiki)" and "External links (off-wiki)" on Simple again? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Related pages" and "Other websites".🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i transits in English to Hindi (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One has wikipedia-articles (in 5 languages), while the other "no languages"

Thank you, but please put this on WP:RfD, or put the WP:A4. – Angerxiety! 16:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no RfD at the time, I believe. (Or else, I would have posted there.)--Clarification: there is a famous person with a similar name, than the one about to be deleted.--Sorry that I can not "help" any more in regard to this matter. 2001:2020:303:5EC4:7CA1:8BBA:8922:27DD (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]