Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 150

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi everyone, Fred Rogers is now a very good article and according to Wikipedia:Very good articles/by date, our first very good article in almost 3 years. Thank you to everyone who has helped promote it! --Ferien (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three "sub-districts"/hromadas in Ukraine

I want to create these 3 titles. Those titles are simple. (If you have suggestions for other titles, please also give an indication for how few hits there are on Google, regarding your suggestion.)

Bakhmut (city) is a large part of Bakhmut (hromada), in case anyone wondered. 2001:2020:30D:68A5:94E5:FAC8:68E6:6B69 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I come to this item late, I know. I suggest we should use an adjective which is in the English language. Something like "district". There is no benefit in meaning "district" or "area" and instead saying "hromoda". Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since (at least) 2020, in Ukraine - a Raion ('district') is divided into Hromadas.
What is a 'district' divided into? a "Ukrainian municipality"?--Relevant page,<br><br>
2001:2020:32F:BD94:4C9F:D97C:95F9:EB42 (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Bakhmut (territorial community) - that could not be a title (but possibly a redirect).--"Territorial community" seems to be what French-wiki has chosen, seeé_territoriale_d%27Ukraine. 2001:2020:32F:BD94:4C9F:D97C:95F9:EB42 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overall, we are simple and our readers are often schoolchildren. There's just no point in using words they have never met before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not specific to children. Words unfamiliar to English speakers can be and are used if they are the correct words. We just need to link or explain them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adjusting flood flag rights

Discussion on administrators noticeboard --Ferien (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Page requests"

I think we need to change this page more frequently. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Macdonald-ross: Do you mean Wikipedia:Requested pages? I'm not sure how many people actively volunteer there. After all, the whole idea of the page is about making pages that people want, but not necessarily what we as a wiki actually need. Unless you're talking about something completely different... --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambig pages

I notice on the disambig page for "Space" that there are many red-link terms. Evidently the page was brought over from En wiki. But do we want to have so many red-links on pages as this? I would guess it is rather off-putting rather than encouraging. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, we should keep the red links because:
  • Without them, people trying to disambiguate may think that the blue links are the only possibilities, and sometimes choose an incorrect option.
  • Disambiguation tools (AWB, Navigation popups with popupFixDabs enabled, Dab solver, and possibly others) can choose the red links and, like all red links, this helps us see what articles we need.
Of course, when bringing a page from enwiki, we might want to change red links to be the names that we would use here, if that's different. Sometimes an equivalent already exists for a red link, such as with movies that use the qualifier "(film)" on enwiki but which use "(movie)" here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rohit Mehta (actor)

Why an editor placed quick deletation tag on this page with a reason of recreation of deleted content 2021? what is this i have created this page first time. without checking any thing he placed a tag of QD. i request you to review that page again Rohit Mehta (actor) - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . he is notable enough for featuring in Simple english Wikipedia. Nalin-choudhary123 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bring back WP:NAC

en:WP:NAC allows for NAC and it seems to help there a lot. We used to have it, but it is inactive now. This would allow people more ways to help out the project and take some of the load off the sysops. RFDs do not currently have a backlog, but I have seen it get up there before with sometimes 50+ pages. Bobherry Talk My Changes 14:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 131#Non-admin closures was the last discussion about this. I think some very valid points are raised there, for why we should not have non-admin closures. I will repeat them a lot of them here for convenience:
  • Admins have been elected to close RfDs and determine community consensus, where as non-admins have not been elected to do that.
  • We have a high ratio of admins to active editors already, so we are not suffering from a lack of sysops nor do we have a massive amount of administrative work to do that we need assistance with.
  • Non-admin closures can result in unnecessary drama.
And, from my POV:
  • RfD almost never gets into a massive backlog and if it does, then it usually isn't an increase in obvious keep cases that non-sysops can act upon.
  • I don't want to make decisions about where people are editing but RfD really requires little to no attention compared to other areas on this wiki.
    • 3,394 articles are currently tagged as lacking sources (and this is not an accurate count of all the articles that lack sources)
    • 2,188 articles are tagged as requiring simplification – Category:All pages that need simplifying
    • According to Category:Stubs, we have 173,043(!) stubs. So.. there are other things that need doing other than allowing non-sysops to close RfDs, that comes with no clear benefit.
--Ferien (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I regularly close RfDs, as do other admins. Those that stay open longer are usually those, where there's no clear consensus. In these cases, it is generally better to have a long-standing admin close, rather than a non-admin (who wasn't elected or anything). Non-admin closure should be for the non-controversial cases. So, no I dpnt really see a need to (re-)introduce non-Aadmin closures Eptalon (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sure there is people here such as myself who have experience doing it on the enwiki at the AFDs that can help out here. The NAC guidelines are complex and for good reason you must understand exactly what you are doing and when in doubt leave it alone such as one I encountered before where it was all keeps (and around 7 at that) but I left it alone since a sysop was the nominator. Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why should we bother creating our own complex NAC guidelines, or importing more of enwiki's bureaucratic processes, when we can just let sysops manage it, that has been working fine for almost 20 years? I'm just not getting any sort of need here, or benefit considering the potential risks that could happen if non-admins were able to close RfDs. --Ferien (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Eptalon said, even if simplewiki were to (re)introduce NAC, it should be only be done on very uncontroversial cases. When there's no consensus (which often means that the discussion is not uncontroversial), I think it's best to leave it around for longer, instead of leaving a non-admin to close it.
Introducing complex guidelines for NACs is exactly what this Wiki shouldn't be doing. It's called the Simple English Wiki after all. We try to keep the processes simple.
I know that admin activity around here can get a bit low, but the RfD backlog isn't such a huge backlog. Also, I'd guess that NAC won't be used for a majority of the deletion discussions. It won't make a significant impact to the backlog.
What we need is more people actively participating in RfDs by leaving comments that are not just votes (such as  Delete with little to no comment) or ambiguous !votes (!voting redirect or merge without specifying the target). — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ll just leave a quick comment here. I think NACs could be very beneficial to the wiki, but I agree that they should only be used on non-controversial/close calls and the user must be uninvolved. I know in recent months/weeks we’ve had a high backlog of RFDs awaiting closure, and I think this could help. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. I was trying to say what illusion flame was saying. In recent weeks we have had a high awaiting closure backlog and I have seen several of which that would have been a NAC eligible closure according to the enwiki guidelines. I do think in the long run this would help the simplewiki. Will it help in the short run? Maybe not but in the long run, yes it will I am 100% sure. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From experience, I know that 30 isn't that much. We've had a triple-digit backlog, and on the other end, we've seen a single-digit backlog too. I don't see any benefit, long or short term in (re)introducing NAC since a lot of requests end up being deletions.
@Bobherry Can you link to some (already closed) discussions that could have been closed with an NAC? — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 03:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve just seen this and there’s a few like Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Wikipedia:Copyright problems where the answer is obvious and consensus is clear. (Even though it has yet to be closed) Illusion Flame (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering that the page was a place for administrative requests, and originally intended to be used for all copyright requests, I do not believe it would be appropriate to speedy-close it. The reason it's yet to be closed is because the closure date hasn't been reached and it was intended to be a fairly major page. --Ferien (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it shouldn’t be speedy closed. I just meant that if no more votes occurred when it was time to close a non-admin (uninvolved) could probably close. Illusion Flame (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason we have RfD backlogs is really only because of more controversial nominations. Around 80% of our deletion discussions end up in a delete and I'd say a good amount of the remainder is controversial. I fail to believe non-admin closures could make any significant change to RfD backlogs (that are not a problem currently) if they will only apply to ~10% or less of our RfDs, and honestly I do think that even setting this up would be a waste of volunteer time when as I've said we have so many other areas where attention is actually needed. --Ferien (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Ferien. NAC doesn't help much with the backlog since most RfDs end up with a delete. RfDs that are not commented on after the deadline can be soft deleted. Remember that deletion is not the most important part of the encyclopedia. It's about making the content. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but most doesn’t mean all. Illusion Flame (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem with this is it feels it's being presented as something that will really help our wiki when it won't. Yes, there could be a minor difference, perhaps non-admins being able to close like 10% of RfDs, but is it worth jumping through all the hurdles to make a decision on when they should occur, writing it all down in policy, changing the RfD preload template to adjust for the new change etc? Not in my view. That's also not accounting for the incorrect closures that could occur and cause drama that would only happen because of non-admin closures being a thing. And is there a need for it? RfDs are generally handled pretty quickly by admins and Djsasso mentioned on the last discussion how we have absolutely no need of the help – if anything, I think administrative backlogs have improved since that comment was posted in 2020. --Ferien (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True but not all. I know on the enwiki many users look towards users behavior on AFDs and NAC when they are nominated to be a sysop as well. Bringing it back would bring something that would be useful in RFA votes here as well. Bobherry Talk My Changes 00:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is only to be used on non-controversial cases, then I don't know how it would be useful in RfA votes. It wouldn't really show any editor would be fit to be an admin – "look, they closed an RfD where the result was obvious, so they should get the mop"? --Ferien (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to my original comment... I've just taken a look at the NAC guidance on w:WP:NAC for the first time and wow, I didn't realise just how complex it was. Two of the three requirements for "Editors who are experienced", (which itself is just one of three requirements for who should close discussions!)... Knowledge of policy and Knowledge of process. In other words, do they know policy and how things work? But that is arguably the most important thing about RfA, along with things like civility, maturity etc, which I think makes this more of an enwiki problem really – even the criteria for closing things as a non-admin is admin-level criteria. Just add on civility, maturity, experience and a need and you have an RfA candidate on this wiki. But on enwiki, you have to prepare for the potential of opposition for single civil comments you have made, opposition for not having enough experience despite being on the wiki for years, sockpuppet accusations in the RfA with no SPI reports, and random discrimination in there just to top it off. That is why barely anyone applies for admin on enwiki, and why their number of administrators has been declining since December 2019. And that's the difference in our attitude to adminship between simplewiki and en: our RfA system works and isn't a mess, and perhaps another part of the reason why enwiki has NAC and we don't – they need non-admins to help with closures. --Ferien (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry: I totally get where you're coming from. I would normally vote to allow NAC's to happen, however, this isn't just Simple wiki in name alone. The way it operates is simpler, the rules are simpler, it really is set up to be a simpler wikipedia. Our audience may be people who don't speak English proficiently, so the simpler things are, the less problems we'll have with misunderstandings. I would vote to not allow NAC's at this time. I will point out that we stil have IAR, so potentially something could be closed under that but I'd be cautious with that too, as that's going to cause a discussion no matter what! Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! 12:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright policy

Wikipedia:Copyrights is severely outdated. It should be updated to reflect the fact that Wikipedia also dual licenses its pages under Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike 4.0. See foundation:Policy:Terms_of_Use, this is not a local decision. Perhaps the text of the CC-BY-SA license can be imported locally as well. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We did have the CC-BY-SA license imported locally until recently where we updated to 4.0. Special:Diff/8866966 was originally a redlink, so I did email WMFOffice to let them know it was one and it's since been updated to the URL, like it seems to have been on pretty much every other wiki. --Ferien (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excessive details

We have been getting the usual obsessive edits on the usual topics. Examples are on sexual topics like Penis and phoney topics like Astrology. We should have some agreement between us as to what should be done. Clearly they are valid topics. Clearly both are examples of typical obsessions. The length and details on a topic should have some limits, or are we bound to accept whatever an obsessive editor puts up on the topic? Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Macdonald-rossWikipedia has an overly detailed template. Might be good to have one here. Usually the detail is good but might need to be split into new articles. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: Thanks for bringing up Penis, and let's include Human penis. That last one is on my watch list due to past vandalism, and it has been getting a lot of changes that I think are not necessary. Not because they are too much detail, but because some of it seems unencyclopedic.
But let's be careful not to say that we shouldn't have too much detail. It depends on the detail. Encyclopedic information that has reliable sources is acceptable. Things that are opinion or instructions on how to do something are not. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed those pages were getting a lot of edits lately as well. I agree with Auntof6. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose that Seal of the President of the United States be renamed Seal of the president of the United States. This would be in keeping with its equivalent article on English Wikipedia (see en:Seal of the president of the United States). I renamed it earlier today, thinking it wouldn't be controversial, but it was changed back. So I want to start a formal discussion instead.

Per the English Wikipedia discussion, it was agreed that this better conformed to Wikipedia's manual of style (specifically en:MOS:CAPS and en:MOS:JOBTITLES).

This format would also be in keeping with similar articles here on Simple English:

Woko Sapien (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, one writes "Seal of the president of the United States" but "President Truman". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If there are no objections to this over the next few days, would it be okay to change the article title back to my previous edit? Woko Sapien (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, definitely. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for some usage stats about SEWP especially regarding editors

The active monthly editors total seems to bounce between 250-350 pretty steadily. I would like some more detail on that. I seem to recall that there was a page that listed the top editors by total edits in a given period of time such as week, month, year, or did I just imagine that? I am trying to write up a paper about SEWP and one of the potential attractions is the relative scale: interacting on a site with a few dozen or up to a hundred highly active users is more accessible for some people. My imagined page or anything similar would help me and my search fu is failing. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is the other page on Wikimedia Statistics for simplewiki's top editors. I think that has the information on it. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Different from what I recall from ages ago, but maybe just redesign. This is very helpful. --Gotanda (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the new Elections Committee members

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello there,

We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.

Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page that needs simplifying

I found a userpage from a while back and it seemed like a good article but needed a bit of simplifying.

I tried to simplify it and moved it into mainspace, but I think it might need more simplifying or updating. I am not entirely sure whether it needs updating, but most of it was written in 2008 and Theistic Satanism is more popular now.

Do you think it needs more simplifying or is out of date?

Here is the page Theistic Satanism Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Immanuelle: Please don't move user pages that belong to other users unless you have their permission. If you want to make an article from such a page, you can just copy the text.
To answer your question, the article was not simple enough, and also needed other improvements. Given your history of being blocked for creating articles that don't meet requirements here, I have moved it back to your userspace. You can work on it there, and I recommend asking for review before moving it back to article space. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 I will do that. Can you do something about the Vandal? This guy immediately did a lot of damage to the page with what I think is an Order of Nine Angles reference Special:Contributions/2804:388:D004:200F:4D9B:7E83:35DE:8772 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle I have warned them. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 03:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Immanuelle: For future reference, here's the best way to handle vandals. Revert the vandalism and leave a warning. If they vandalize again, repeat that process, leaving a higher-level warning. If they vandalize after receiving a level-4 warning (also called last or final warning), then report them at WP:VIP. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


!. It's conceited to start changing page titles before you are just registered as a user.

2. Many of the changes go from titles which can be understood to titles which are telegraphic.

3.Whatever became of discussing thing first?

Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem confused: why is this posted here? There is no user by that name. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he means User:PageOrganizer. The annoying differences between English variants... --Ferien (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any event, they are creating a lot of cruft with unreferenced details that are not encyclopedic. Car fan pages. Does not discuss, but just reverts. --Gotanda (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i would like to ask a question

what gives you the right to be rude and what gives you the privildge to say dreamer super tramp that is very rude and you have no right (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i never was a tramp iam well the first of all thing of all is that i am a human being and tramp is not a nice word and you have no i dia what i have gone through hell and back i have known you since i was fourteen years old if your going to be rude put you lip over your head and swallow because i am getting old (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to provide a link to your issue?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right to Vanish

   How do I exercise the right to vanish? I would like all of my files with wikipedia to be deleted including all edits and talk pages Traingoodcarbad (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Traingoodcarbad: See Wikipedia:Right to vanish. Also see en:Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, which has more information.
Note that the specific things you mention would not be deleted. They would just be associated with a replacement account. Since your only edit here on Simple English Wikipedia has been this one that I'm responding to, it might be better to make your request on a site where you have done more work, such as English Wikipedia. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not include Paul Bickerton. I guess this is because it is in the hidden Category:Deletion requests. Is it possible to alter it so putting an article in a hidden category does not take it out? Rathfelder (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rathfelder: The link in your heading is red. Do you perhaps mean Special:UncategorizedPages? Aside from that, it would be great if this could be done. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed I did. Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages relating to Black people and white supremacy

Pages like African Americans, Black people, White supremacy and White nationalism have been the subject of attacks - should they be semiprotected, or would it be better to leave them as some sort of honeypot? LilianaUwU (talk / changes) 03:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LilianaUwU, yeah, when there are multiple articles, it is generally best to leave them or perhaps create an abuse filter. For future, requests like this about protection should go to the administrators' noticeboard. --Ferien (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cartridge articles

While creating Heckler & Koch P9, I realized that some articles for cartridges have spaces (e.g. 7.62 x 39mm) and others do not (e.g. 9x19mm Parabellum). I also realized that some articles use "x" and others use "×"

What should we use? – Angerxiety! 00:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angerxiety, we should use ×, as the correct symbol for by, without spaces. × is the more correct symbol and it's probably best to have no spaces as well. I've moved the pages. --Ferien (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! – Angerxiety! 18:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2023

I came across this campaign to add photos to articles that don't have them and thought I'd post it here in case anyone wants to participate. If so, read the various pages and rules and go for it! The campaign runs through the end of August. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobel Prize

Why does our Year 2000 give itself a Nobel Prize? The version on En wiki does not have one! It's just a mistake. People get Nobel Prizes, not dates!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you talking about? -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 and Macdonald-ross: 2000 has a Nobel Prize icon. I believe it started appearing after a user copied a lot of the content from enwiki. The Nobel Prize icon must be the name of another template on en. --Ferien (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed - Template:Nobelprize was being used as a reference on the page. Changed it to a different source. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DovahFRD, I was looking earlier and I couldn't tell what it was, so thank you for that! --Ferien (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uw-attempt warnings

Hello everyone. We currently don't have warnings for bad edits made through the abuse filter on this wiki. Me and Bobherry have been working on bringing the enwiki attempt warnings here and some simplification has been done to keep them similar to the other user warn templates on this wiki. These templates are on the following pages: User:Ferien/Warnings/Template:Uw-attempt1, User:Ferien/Warnings/Template:Uw-attempt2, User:Ferien/Warnings/Template:Uw-attempt3, User:Ferien/Warnings/Template:Uw-attempt4 and User:Ferien/Warnings/Template:Uw-attempt4im. Please offer your thoughts on these, and feel free to improve them directly if you wish. --Ferien (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has the abuse filter been triggered a lot? It seems odd to sanction people for this kind of thing if we aren't sure they intended to do harm. I think I've triggered the filter a few times myself, and I wasn't intending any harm. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the abuse filter is triggered quite a bit – Special:AbuseLog – and a good amount of the actions there are harmful. It's important to note that this template should only be used where editors are trying to make bad edits, not just because the abuse filter has been triggered. In cases where non-admins cannot view the abuse log or their edit looks to be in good-faith, the warning should not be given. --Ferien (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is triggered a lot. The warnings are based on the enwiki warnings but have been simplified and redone to match our standards and policies. We have several AFHs who work to maintain it and create various filters the are triggered on everything from vandalism to LTA accounts to userpage spam and more. The actions took could be a simple warning to the AF blocking them itself.  Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry Some global filters did block users upon tripping (using the dummy edit filter account) but this action has not been enabled for local filters. I've seen block autopromote being used but it's rare now. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Depends on the time of day, or the day itself. Usually around 150 edits trip a filter, though not all are prevented. Some filters have higher false positive rates, some are more precise. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per having worked on them. They have been discussed before and we also talked about adding them into the standard twinkle installation like the enwiki has. Bobherry Talk My Changes 12:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of curiosity, where have they been discussed before? --Ferien (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forget I know it was awhile back. Bobherry Talk My Changes 15:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry @Ferien I do not see a link to report false positives in the first two warnings. Those are necessary IMO. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 14:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My idea was that this would be used for people attempting to make bad edits only, although if we want to expand it to all edits blocked by an abuse filter, it could be changed and the false positives page could be added back in. --Ferien (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia bots

Wikipedia bots: I don't think the bots mentioned there are notable enough to be on an article. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron, indeed, while the work the bots mentioned do is very helpful to our Wikipedia, they're definitely not notable enough to appear in the mainspace, so I've removed the examples from the article. Thank you for posting about it here. --Ferien (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible problem with Listen template or module

I was fixing something on Dreamer (Supertramp song) and noticed that Template:Listen isn't working there. I looked at some of the other 8 articles in Category:Articles with empty listen template and I don't see what the problem might be. If anyone feels like taking a look at this, that would be good. :) -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would that template even be usable here? It is mainly used to provide a sample of a copyrighted IP. En likes to play easy with fair use, but commons normally decides what files we provide here and they do not side strongly with copy violations. There is no reason for Dreamer to violate cr by providing a sample. Even accepting fair use laws in many countries, doing this could easily bring up violations in other countries which may be very severe at times.
More likely than not, all the entries in that tracking category are caused by people copy/pasting info from En and not removing info that violates the standards here (free use, not fair use) IMO, the template should be wiped and replaced in a manner similar to the portal template to inform the user that only free use is used here. Pure Evil (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A contronym is a word with two opposite meanings. Examples of contronyms include

  • Sanction: means both "punish" and "tolerate"
  • Cleave: means both "break apart" and "stick to"
  • Clip: means both "break or cut" and "attach"
  • Dust: means both "cover in dust" or "remove dust"
  • Handicap: means both "disability" and "advantage"
  • Inflammable: means both "flammable" and "not flammable"
  • Overpowered: means both "very powerful" and "defeated by something more powerful"

Don't use contranyms on Simple Wikipedia. 2607:FB91:118:C4BB:9576:42C:93E7:B285 (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course we should try not to use ambiguous words, at least not ones that would be ambiguous in context. Wiktionary has a whole list of them at en:wikt:Appendix:English contranyms. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point and many of these words are too complex anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 02:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it at least possible to say whether "contronym" or "contranym" is correct, or maybe both? Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's both. 2607:FB91:112:8C9C:C1F8:CC9C:4C8E:944D (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is outdated. Can you delete it? Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We mainly prefer that outdated articles are updated rather than deleted, please feel free to update it yourself!- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fires, earthquakes, and floods

I think that fires, earthquakes, and floods do not belong in the weather category (such as Category:2022 in weather). Is that correct? Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think floods generally count as weather. Fires - it depends on what sort of a fire. Earthquakes I am not so sure of. Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree. Enwiki doesn't seem to have any of these under weather. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wildfires and earthquakes should both fall under natural disasters. Floods are weather caused natural disasters so they could fall under both. Pure Evil (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Floods are not always caused by weather. Examples are dam failures and floods caused by tsunamis. (Tsunamis aren't always caused by earthquakes, either, in case anyone didn't know.) -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. We have to use judgement when deciding how to categorise these events. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of a dam failure, that is a man made disaster so the flood would not be a natural disaster. Unless the dam failed due to natural causes. Though if the dam failed due to weather related causes, then it is back to a weather based, naturally occuring man made disaster. Thats a bit wordy for a category though. Then again, if the dam fails. the flood would then likely be caused by gravity pulling the water down so it is natural again... and all forms of precipitation would also fall under gravity based events As would most plane crashes. Unless it jarts into the side of a mountain. The list of gravity based events is huge and includes natural, weather based and man made. Even the World Trade Center attack is technically natural, although it was two jart attacks as it was the forces of nature that actually caused the towers to fall. The planes just provided gravity with the reason to do its thing. Pure Evil (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's fairly obvious that human-caused disasters are quite different from weather-caused disasters. I'm reminded that "Act of God" is still a legal term (at any rate in the UK). It's helpful to distinguish between completely unforeseen natural events on the one hand ("Acts of God"), and events where a jury might decide upon human negligence or other guilt. We have quite a few pages which are good examples of one or the other. The Tay Bridge disaster is one of my favourites. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Tay Bridge disaster is a good example of being both a natural disaster and a man made one. The Tacoma Narrows bridge would be another (and it has video) With the Tay Bridge, there was both poor planning and execution in its construction (man -made issues) and natural affects in the gale force winds. It is both man made and natural. Tacoma was similar in that it was not constructed to properly deal with the weather conditions it was subjected to. Its man made factors failed to be able to deal with the nature based factors. Pure Evil (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that is common for many sorts of disasters. Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone fork w:User:SD0001/StubSorter.js so it can be used here to sort stubs? Minorax (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minorax, as far as I'm aware, stub sorting is strongly discouraged here – see Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project#Subcategorizing – so it is unlikely that that script will be forked. --Ferien (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussions

Do we have a page for this? I want to start one, but I do not know local policy about it. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuicoleJR, you can just move a page usually, but if you think it'll need a discussion, start one on the talk page then just say on ST that a move discussion is happening on that talk page. The policy related to this is WP:MOVE. --Ferien (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is a blatantly obvious move (naming conventions, typos, spellings, caps, etc) then Ferien's advice is spot on. just fix the issue. If it is more controversial, I would advise to address the issue on the talk page and let it sit a few days to see if anyone has an opinion against moving the page. There may be a reason you haven't considered why the page is where it is. It is often just as likely that no one will notice the post or no one has an opinion to voice. In this case, wait 3-5 days and then as no one complained, make the change. If there are complaints later, it is a simple fix for an admin to revert the move and clean out the created pages. No harm, no foul.
If the page is move protected, admin assistance would clearly be needed, to that move would be directed to WP:AN
It is advisable to leave a note here, pointing to a page move discussion the talk page. If this is done though, it would not be a surprise to me if the discussion got bogged down and no consensus could be found.. Pure Evil (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Common contractions

Contractions like "don't" are very common in spoken English, and I imagine they are very quickly picked up by learners. However, we tend to write them out in full. Sometimes that gives the English a strange feeling of being artificial. Novels and comics, however, do render spoken English more as it is spoken. Ideally, we should use only what readers can understand. Unfortunately, we have no data on this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is, but it's better to spell things out here. Use of contractions is informal, and an encyclopedia uses formal tone. Besides that, some contractions are ambiguous. For example, "She's seen" could mean either "She is seen" or "She has seen" -- not to mention that the apostrophe-S can also be a possessive. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contractions should be spelled out in full on this wiki. When learning to speak English informally contractions are often used because native speakers often use them. In formal English learning, contractions are avoided and so we should avoid them also. fr33kman 13:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, now that I check, our manual of style says not to use them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twinkle Rollback vs Rollback (AGF)

What is the difference between these two options? I can't see any difference between the two.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @FusionSub,
  • "Rollback (AGF)" is for reverting someone whos made bad edits (ie edit tests etc) but aren't vandalism (WP:Assume good faith)
  • "Rollback" is for reverting vandalism but an edit summary is provided
  • "Rollback (VANDAL)" is for reverting vandalism but no edit summary is provided
I hope this helps, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, just a reminder to users who aren't aware: Twinkle "Rollback" is actually the 'Undo' function and not actually Rollback. However, the actions of the Twinkle Rollback is pretty much the same as the actual Rollback feature, with the only difference being there is only one option in actual Rollback --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember that it used to confuse me for quite some time.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is there to do here?

Hi, I'm new here and I want to know some things to write about here. It looks like most of the articles are very short and some of them aren't actually simple. Also, I looked at WP:Proposed very good articles and it looks like the article there hasn't been edited much in several weeks. What are some important articles to improve? I want to help make this website better so people don't try to shut it down again like they did in 2018. Cadillacs zoom in America (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To start, you could make it so that some countries, like Niue, do not have stubs as their articles. Other articles that need help include the provinces/states of each country and some major historical people and events. Also, a lot more articles need to be written. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you! Cadillacs zoom in America (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty much every editor has a different reason they edit here. They also have their own scope of how they edit. Some like to combat vandalism and patrol the page of new changes. Others like to expand the info here by making new pages or expanding the pages that are already here. Some, like me, are wikignomes. We like to just roam around and tweak away the errors.
Many also have a field of interest. It could be as broad as movies or biology or as narrow as "The Whedonverse" where the editor is out there working on 1930s movies this week and 2013 animated movies next. Or articles on all the species of frogs. Of every show written by Joss Whedon in his traditional shows (Buffy, Angel and Firefly) and all the characters and actors from those shows. No matter the size of the scope, the editor should pick something they have an understanding of as well as a desire to learn more. We alway learn as we write, even if it is simplifying, expanding or cleanup work we are doing. Over time, our aims and functions can change. I started in cleanup, moved to Whedonverse article creation, shifted to wikignoming with no focus (ignoring the subject and just focusing on the problem of the moment) and on to pretty much being a pain in the side of many here. Oh and co-running the place for a time. too much stress when you've had 4+ strokes.
I would suggest you find a topic that interest you and see if you can find a category full of articles on that topic. Browse through there and see if you can find a way to improve the content. Going at if from the other direction, you could start in one of the error categories (Article that need simplified) and see if you find anything that interests you.
It would be advisable to look into help pages on how to write in Simple English to get familiar with what it normally expected and know that it is an acquired skill - practice, practice, practice. The more you do, the more natural it comes to doing it. While even the most basic changes help a lot, it often takes time to gain a degree of fluency - Ive edited here since 2006 and I still have room to improve. There are no native speakers of Simple. Even a simple-4 level editor is a work in progress. Expect others to come behind you and clean up things you miss. People still fallow behind me for the occasional typo or spelling error. With practice, we just leave less behind for them to need to do. Pure Evil (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anybody read the articles here? I never see them on Google search. Cadillacs zoom in America (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many people read the pages here! In June, simple had over 40 million page views - To add another answer on important pages to edit, there is a list of some of the most important pages here. Many of them already have good content, but some of them could be expanded (such as Voltaire). Have fun on simplewiki! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for offering to contribute! We definitely need more content creation, but if you’re interested in more maintenance tasks, you could definitely revert vandalism or find bad pages to tag for deletion. Either way, we appreciate your willingness to help improve the encyclopedia. @QuicoleJR left some helpful info on your talk page you should check out! Illusion Flame (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm more interested in expanding and simplifying articles. Cadillacs zoom in America (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we do happen to have over a million stubs. Any help with those would be very good. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Childrens television vandals

Spot checking New Changes, I happened upon a user making questionable changes to List of programs broadcast by Universal Kids. After looking at the changes (added a non existent program, re named another improperly), I checked the history and found similar edits. I also checked their contributions and found similar edits to other pages though there were some valid edits though those were severely lacking (Maisy) Looking back at the main list, there could be issues going back months to when IWI made an edit or even past that. We have had extensive vandalism to these list over the year. This is just the most recent spat of edits. I considered just reverting it all back to IWI's edit and hope that was the last good version but even that looks questionable (sup scripts instead of ref tags..) so it looks like the entire page need to be verified for fake info. All of the users edits would also need to be double checked line by line as they have added fake info to other pages as well. Pure Evil (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main article for this category is state. The main content, however, is Category:States by country - which is built around a different meaning of the word "state". I think we should seperate them, but I'm not sure how it can be done. Inspiration welcome! Rathfelder (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be separated into Nation state (country like entities) and federated states (political subdivisions of a nation state / country). The main article (state) would be better named as Nation state with an Otheruses template pointing to an article about federated states. There are also constituent states which I have to say Im a bit confused on.. Seems examples include the parts and islands that make up New Zealand and to some degree the countries that make up the EU. I would hazard a guess that the term may also cover the separate nations that make up the UK but I could be way off base there. Pure Evil (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nation state usually means a country that has one main ethnic group. I think neither Nigeria nor the USA would be considered a nation state. It may be hard to choose a title for this. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nation-state is not a concrete label and the United States can be considered a nation state and is considered as such by a number of sources because of the common national and cultural identity as Americans. I understand that enwiki resolves this by calling what would be the category "States by country", "First-level administrative divisions by country". Freedom4U (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russo–Ukrainian War

The purpose of this recommendation is to help the pages look more professional. Look at this:

Russo–Ukrainian War

Russo – Ukrainian War

Russo—Ukrainian War

Have a look and decide which looks better. I can tell you that in books and periodicals and newspapers the first version will not be used. It gets used here because it is easy to type on a typewriter, and the average person does not know about print technology. The second version will also not be used. The third version will probably be used.

The page on this wiki wiki which deals with this is called "Dash".

Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the article title, should be corrected (if it is not correct).--The first line in the article, should also be corrected.--Thanks for pointing out that we have a title of an important article, that probably needs to be tweeked. (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm hoping somebody can help clean up the page airplane and add some better content about how airplanes work. Aircraft could be improved too. (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:War criminals

Somebody put Hirohito in that category, but he was never tried or convicted as a war criminal. I know some people think he is a war criminal. So does that count, or not? (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that in order to be in that category there should be well-documented text in the article which supports the assertion. Otherwise this is just open to personal opinions. If one asserts that Hirohito was a war criminal, then it is pretty easy to make a case that Truman was as well, for example. --Gotanda (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A person should only be included in a category if it can be proven to apply. In some cases, inclusion in non-controversial. Year of birth / death or living people are usually generally (though not always) accepted and need little or no confirmation. The more controversial the category, the more it needs to be proven. War criminal would be seen by most to be a category that needs confirmation. Proof that they were convicted of a war crime would be ideal but things like being charged and committing suicide before actually being convicted though the general consensus of society tended to support guilt could be enough. It could be a consensus of historians that a historical figure met the standards to the title of war criminal to apply retroactively - Hitler was dead before he could be tried as a war criminal but it would be hard to find a sane person to argue that it would not apply.
If Hirohito was neither convicted of nor charged as a war criminal, he almost certainly would not qualify be in that category. Most likely his was added as an individuals non-NPOV. In any case, the validation should be in the article and be properly referenced. This is not the case here so he should not be in the category. Pure Evil (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is well-known that Hirohito was not a prime mover in or for the war. I think the En wiki section "Accountability for Japanese war crimes" is not quite a balanced judgement. Now, mark you, I am not an expert on this topic. However, I think that the En wiki paragraph underplays the role of the Army in its criminal behaviour towards prisoners, and overplays Hirohito's actual influence. If we compare Hitler to Hirohito it is perfectly clear which of the two was a prime mover. I'd add that the key Japanese interest was Manchukuo. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"War criminal" should be a "soft category (Wikipedia)", in my opinion.--"War criminal" is not a good enough category, in itself (but sub-categories would likely be helpful). If there is no final court verdict, as a war criminal, it is still okay to paint the picture in the article, with the sources that says "war criminal".--Not sure that the category will capture any of the people responsible for Mỹ Lai massacre (My Lai). I am fine with Simple-wiki maybe not having the exact same outlook as English-wiki, when it comes to who should be in wiki-category: "War criminal".--Not sure if I will be replying to this discussion; The related articles are of somewhat more interest to me (than the discussion itself), so I will try to spend more time on that (than the discussion). (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)/ (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cat: War criminals applies to those who have been convicted on a war crime. If any globally recognized court finds someone guilty of a war crime, the category applies. The term Globally recognized may be debated with this leading to people not being recognized as such, but to some degree, there are host of war tribunals whose outcomes are universally accepted. Labelling every person who committed the crime is not the goal. We do not label them, we are just sorting them by labels given to them by society through some form of consensus. For example, OJ Simpson is not labeled as a murderer. He was never convicted as one. Most people in their hearts may feel he is and he may rightly be one, but we do not label him based on what he was not convicted of. He was convicted of kidnapping and burglary so those labels stick but no murderer.
That being the case, he could always confess to the crime in a nationally televised interview. Double jeopardy would come into play with anyone trying to convict him but his guilt, by confession, is a widely publicized fact that would lead to him being included as a murderer even though he was never convicted as one.
In the My Lai case, the category is not for the people responsible for the massacre. We are not judges who determine who is guilty. The category is for the people reported to be found guilty by a recognized court of law. We do not even report the guilt. We only aggregate what others report and provide that information in a concise form. Pure Evil (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The recent changes on racism seem too complex. Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally speaking, the article fails to adhere to the modern definition of the word.
Modern racism only applies to non-minority groups as defined by the loudest voice at that moment. This commonly means people they define as white but can often add Asian people to the list of oppressors. As wikipedia is run by mostly white people, it is incapable of not being a font of white supremist bias with an article like this one being just another example of white people dictating to others.
History and facts are irrelevant in the fact of the truth they chose to accept. Slavery did not exist before the white man created it. All white people were then and still are responsible for it all and should suffer so that those who were never captured by African tribe and sold off as property may get repaid for suffering they never faced.
Of course. I am a white male so my opinion doesn't matter. Then again, I not Jewish and yet I thing the Holocaust was wrong.. maybe that is just a lucky guess since it didn't affect someone I didn't know who I happen to share a bloodline with so I can't have an opinion. Pure Evil (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Racism, just like any other article, must follow NPOV and stay simple. It is not good that it must be neutral, but NPOV is one of the five pillars. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ideally, I am in full agreement with most of that. I would disagree in that it is good that it must be neutral though and hope that that is a typo. The problem is when a vocal part of society choses to redefine a word. As with the meaning of "gay" from the 1920 or "queer" from later in the century, what the word racism is said to mean in the modern culture has been co-opted by a vocal minority to no longer adhere to the traditional meaning listed here. In the modern lexicon, there is a widely spoken belief that racism can not apply those who were not oppressed by their standards. In modern America, this tends to mean if you are not descendants of the Atlantic slave trade, you were not oppressed so racism can not apply to you. This tends to ignore the racism faced you many European groups (Irish, Italians, etc) and Asian people (Japanese interment camps and the treatment of Chinese people building the railroad system ) Under the current use of the term, racism is only about how white people treat people whose ancestors could have been from Africa.
By historic definition and based on the actual word itself, racism should apply to anyone treating someone else in a way that is based on their race. Even if it is in a positive way. That is not the definition that is commonly used in the modern world. The problem here is when we move from the traditional meaning to the modern meaning (as we moved gay from "frollicing happingy" to Homosexual male). With the US Supreme Court declaring Affirmative Action to be unconstitutional as a form of racism (in the traditional meaning against Asians mainly although it does affect other groups), there is a case for the term being returned to its traditional meaning but it is a bit to early have hope of that.
As I pointed out, I'm an oppressor and a rapist (ie the modern definition of a white male) so I can have no valid opinion on the matter and anything I say is steeped in misogyny an white supremacy. Pure Evil (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I specifically said that it is not good. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And so I will disagree with you. Being neutral is important to recording what happened. No ones Point of View is more important than the facts of what happened. Rather than being biased and only providing one side of an issue, we need to not weigh one side more than the other. This does not mean we must consider every stray conspiracy theory, but we can not just color things the way one person sees it. To declare Trump or Biden was the best president ever may be one groups POV, but there is plenty of dispute to the contrary and we need to be neutral and not pick sides in the matter. My POV is not more important than the truth. No ones is.. providing balanced and truthful information is a key pillar of Wikipedia for a reason. If you oppose being neutral, I wonder if this is a place for you. Pure Evil (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some nonsense needs correcting. All ancient societies had slaves. Slavery was very common in the Africa of the past. People of all colours, religions and beliefs had slaves. It's nothing to do with being white (or any other colour) it's to do with the practical necessities of ancient societies. How can you get something so simple so wrong? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not saying any of this is correct, but it is a very common talking point in todays society. Much of the past is being ignored or rewritten to support modern talking points. The truth is seen as subjective by many. 1+1 = 2 only if they feel it is that way. Tomorrow that opinion could change and they will argue it is 3. What defines racism in the modern worlds talking points rarely matches up with historic definitions of the world. It no longer seems to matter if there was slavery in Ancient times in Africa, Asia, Central America, pretty much everywhere there were humans who could make others work for them. I have heard it said that there is more slavery active in the world today than ever before but this is just being ignored as slavery is only about how white people treated African people during the Atlantic Slave trade in regards to the lands that are currently the United States. While this is clearly idiotic, it is the opinion of the vocal majority and people are being destroyed in various ways for opposing these opinions with the historic truth. Pure Evil (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I need help here. An IP keeps replacing flags with ones that they like more. I am approaching 3RR and I am not quite sure if this is vandalism. Please help me. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    i will help! (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What is 3RR? Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • 3RR is an English Wikipedia rule that prevents edit wars by not allowing an editor to make 3 consecutive edits o the same page reverting the actions of another. I would not worry about it in this case. Assume Good Faith and try speaking to the IP editor outlining your position. If they keep replacing the flags then go ahead and revert them and bring it up to an admin. fr33kman 16:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Looking at the actual edits, AGF is replaced with either stupidity or complete vandalism. Replacing the flag of PRoChina with the flag to Taiwan is not an innocent mistake. They replaced North and South Korea with just Korea with the SKorea flag.. And there are a host of other changes either rewriting the global map or world history. If this is good faith, the person needs education. Most likely it is complete vandalism. Pure Evil (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I tried to remove the vandalism, but he keeps adding vandalism every minute. (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Blocked for 31 hours. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 09:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Finally. (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added note here. If a person chose to replace a picture of an actor or some seanic location, that is normally AGF. In their opinion pic A of Jennifer Lawrence is better than pic B. Or this picture of the river is better than that one. That is not the case here. Each country has its own official flag. More often than not, there is only one acceptable option. What is the currently correct flag? There could be multipe files of the essentially same image (flag.jpg vs flag.png). Shifting those would be AGF in most cases. Picking a different historic flag or a flag for a different country is almost never good faith. To replace the US flag with a version when it only had 48 stars or to replace it with the UK flag in not an edit made in good faith. You do not accidently forget Hawaii and Alaska joined the US or that we are not the UK. US/UK could be a typo if the file name were just those letters but often they are not and why did you think they needed 'fixed' in the first place. Ths s not a difference of opinion. It is purposefully replacing information in an article with incorrect and often-times politically motivateed info. (PRoChina => Taiwan? recombining Korea. not ideologically based?) AGF should be the first step, but only when it is a possible reason. It was not in this case. The actions taking place where clearly malicious. Pure Evil (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The IP vandal turned the flags into politically ideal flags, he is a politically biased editor. (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Polygenic score

I would like material from User:Chamaemelum/Polygenic score to be added to, or to replace, the current version of the page (Polygenic score). I would like help understanding if there are any improvements that can be made, or if the language is not simple enough. Feel free to give recommendations, edits, and what changes you think should be made for it to be added to the actual article (or if it's ready now). Chamaemelum (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am confused here. I swear I rewrote the entire intro to an article on this subject a week or so ago.. The intro was heavily on the complex side and seemed to fail to explain the basic idea of the topic or how it was used. It started with the Polygenic score is a score that .. repeating but not explaining. I completely rewrote the entire intro as someone else was working on the rest, but there is not hint of my complete rewrite in the history.
Looking at the log, it seems that it was deleted as an en:copy paste but the intro was nowhere near that .. heck the version here was actually a better version than theirs as theirs was tagged as being too hard to be understood by their standards while ours would have fallen at the high end of readability which I would see as understandable given the level of the subject matter. Its hard to be entirely simple on highly technical topics such as genetics. The fact that our article here now ignores the agricultural, horticultural and zoological uses for the score and the intro sentence is just.... that... makes me wonder why the article was down graded so badly. Pure Evil (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm hoping that we can fix up the draft article in my talk page space, and then add or replace the current article once it's ready. Do you have any feedback on the article at User:Chamaemelum/Polygenic score? Chamaemelum (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, you need to say what the topic is about. There is nothing in the lead that says what subject actually is. What is a polygenic score? you say somethings that is is used for but nothing about what it actually is or that it is part of research in genetics. Personal information should be avoided. Do not use "us", "we" or "you". Does the number actually predict how much education a person will get? Is it only limited to humans? Is it not used for all areas of genetics?
"In genetics, a polygenic score is .... It is used to ... Polygenic score are created by.. The term was first used by ... in ... when they ... " Cover the basics right from the beginning. Pure Evil (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the feedback!
Saying what a polygenic score is can be tricky. It is a set of weights assigned to genetic variants that's associated with a phenotype. Saying it is a number would make sense if the article discussed an individual's polygenic score as opposed to polygenic scores as a concept. However, defining it as a single number might be confusing (how can a single number predict if multiple different people get Alzheimer's or not?). I added a definition that applies to both the number and the general more widely used concept of a polygenic score as a predictor.
I've made/verified some edits:
  • Defined what a polygenic score is: "A polygenic score is the effect of many genetic variants on a trait." checkY
  • Deleted all instances of "us," verified that the article doesn't use we or you. checkY
  • Verified that the article says polygenic scores do predict how much education a person will get: "Polygenic scores... predict... the amount of education someone gets." checkY
  • The mention of polygenic score use in plants and animals was in the body, so I've added this information to the lede so it's known that they aren't exclusively used in humans. checkY
  • Polygenic scores would not be used in, say, the study of histone structure. However, I'm not sure what benefit comes from including the information that polygenic scores are not used in all areas of genetics, because this applies to nearly all concepts within genetics.
  • Created the requested format "In genetics, a polygenic score is .... It is used to ..." checkY
  • Confirmed the lede covers how polygenic scores are created (sentences 4-9). checkY
  • Didn't add who created the polygenic score, as it isn't discussed in sources and it was likely created incrementally by many people over time (likely in the context of estimated breeding values at first).
Let me know if there are any further improvements that can be made, or if you think the content should be added to the article. Chamaemelum (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deploying the Phonos in-line audio player to your Wiki


Apologies if this message is not in your language, ⧼Please help translate⧽ to your language.

This wiki will soon be able to use the inline audio player implemented by the Phonos extension. This is part of fulfilling a wishlist proposal of providing audio links that play on click.

With the inline audio player, you can add text-to-speech audio snippets to wiki pages by simply using a tag:

<phonos file="audio file" label="Listen"/>

The above tag will show the text next to a speaker icon, and clicking on it will play the audio instantly without taking you to another page. A common example where you can use this feature is in adding pronunciation to words as illustrated on the English Wiktionary below.

{{audio|en|En-uk-English.oga|Audio (UK)}}

Could become:

<phonos file="En-uk-English.oga" label="Audio (UK)"/>

The inline audio player will be available in your wiki in 2 weeks time; in the meantime, we would like you to read about the features and give us feedback or ask questions about it in this talk page.

Thank you!

UOzurumba (WMF), on behalf of the Foundation's Language team

02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It's one of those infrequent crosswiki messages explaining a feature that is (or has) been rolled out to all wikis. Ignore it if it doesn't affect you. fr33kman 00:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Population of cities

I'm updating the population of American cities using the 2020 census. I have two questions:

  1. Is it better to state the exact census population in the article, or a more approximate number? Whatever population was measured in 2020 is not accurate now, and there are errors in counting anyway. Some examples that are not exact include Casper, Wyoming and San Jose, California.
  2. If the exact number is used, what is the simplest way to write it? I have seen
    • At the 2020 census, xxx people lived there.
    • The population is xxx, as of the 2020 census.
    • The 2020 census counted xxx people.
    • In 2020, xxx people lived there.
and many other versions. I'm asking because this exact sentence could appear on thousands of articles, so it would be best to have a template that is as simple as possible.

Kk.urban (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While not perfectly accurate since the census does not include every person living in a place, the wording "In 2020, xxx people lived there.[ref]" tends to be accepted as the way that is most accurate and simplest to understand. "during/In the 2020 census, ..." also work, though not so much "At the 2020 census" as "at" denotes a location. While not totally correct (given census margin of errors, homeless people living there, not everyone completed the census. etc), we would still use the official government census number and not estimate when stating the data. Estimates can be acceptable in the prose (a city on nearly 8 million people) but when listing the actual facts, stick with the documented census numbers without rounding. Pure Evil (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Farming vs Agriculture

En wiki redirects "Farming" to "Agriculture". I decided to use "Farming" here as simpler, but others are starting pages here with the En wiki usage. I think there's only a sliver of difference in the meaning, but bring the question here to get more opinions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Farming" should be the main article.--"Agriculture" could (or should) redirect to an appropriate section in "Farming" (wiki-article).--That section should explain, or hint at the sliver (or 2-3 slivers) of a difference between "Agriculture" and "Farming".--If my post was helpful, then fine. (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
while farming seems simpler, the fact that it has multiple uses makes me wonder. In video games, a player can farm for cloth, gold, herb or a host of other resources. In modern economics, people farm for various forms of Bitcoin. Generally, any form of collecting resources can be called farming. It does not have to involve agriculture even if it normally does. An article on farming should include all forms of farming. It would center on agriculture but should also cover other uses. Pure Evil (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Farming" could be a disambiguation (wikipedia) page.--Simple question: is "Farming (by a farmer)" a smaller topic than "Agriculture"?--I am asking, because I am not sure.--When i said "Farming (by a farmer)" [like in the song, "Old MacDonald had a farm"] - that is meant to include "Farming (by one or more farmers)". (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)/ (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Farming in the agriculture sense tends to only apply to the production of food like items. It covers the various steps of maintaining the soil, planting seed, growing plants and harvesting them. When most people think farming, these are the things the associate with the practice. Agriculture is more. the biggest shift may be livestock. Raising cattle is a part of agriculture. Fish hatcheries are agriculture. Oyster farms for food or other resources apply. Growing cotton for cloth, tobacco of smoking and trees for lumber are all a part of agriculture. There are many parts of agriculture that are not associated with farming. over all, farming is a subset of agriculture. It is just a part of the greater whole. Pure Evil (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, user:Pure Evil.--Okay, for now I think that there should be one article about "Agriculture" (including {{main|Farming}}) and one article about "Farming".--Would that be "not possible" (impossible)? (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest "farming", it is simpler. [Unsigned post]

  • I have started "Agriculture" (article). Please consider moving this discussion to "Talk:Farming" or "Talk:Agriculture". 2001:2020:343:AEED:2C89:377D:A877:DD57 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A discussion at English-wiki (no later than 2006), said that: Both the Unesco Thesaurus and Library of Congress subject headings have "Farming: use Agriculture". (See, thread number 2.).--I still think that a main article, should be "Farming".--"Agriculture" could maybe be a stub that says: "Agriculture is farming plus blah-blah." (It would maybe be preferable to (there) say, nearly nothing else, about farming.)--I am still searching for sources for: things that are agriculture-but-(arguably)-not-farming. 2001:2020:301:5A0B:286C:5710:DD3B:C71D (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox link


The sandbox link for the sidebar (to the left) in which the community previously voted to have, is no longer present on the new vector skin (I can't find it). Should there be a consensus again before requesting it to be restored if possible? Tsugaru let's talk! :) 19:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Vector 2022 skin, the sandbox link is on the right side of the page. It is on the left on the vector legacy (2010) skin Pure Evil (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And it is not there at all on mobile. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Pure Evil! Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request move

Move "Multi Crew Coordination" to "Multi-crew cooperation". This is the correct name and formatting as per the sources (see also English Wikipedia for confirmation). Also please delete the talk page. Cagliost (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I already moved the page. MathXplore (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPs creating pages

  • how are IP editors creating pages and how do i create a page, that is not the case on en.wp (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This wiki has not blocked IP article creations. To make an article, just search the title you want the article to have, then click the "create this" link. You can also click on a redlink in a page. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    so why has en.wp blocked it, and well, i think i will stay here. (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    EnWiki is a lot bigger than this wiki. As they are a big community, they need many more rules and policies than we do. We are here to create an encyclopedia, and anyone's input is welcome. We have a large admin team, who regularly delete pages that are seen as "test pages", or that fall under other quick deletion criteria (two other common reasons: the subject of the article is not notable enough, or people are writing about other people which are close to them, they have a conflict of interest, and the resulting page is not neutral). If you think you'l contribute more, it is a good idea to create an account, it makes many things easier. Eptalon (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    but i forgot my password and don't ever want to log in anyhow. (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Personal information safe?

Hello, it's me Bakhos, so i have a question, is personal information safe? Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You definitely should not be revealing your age and full name while under 18. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
alright sorry, but thank you for hiding my age and full name :) Bakhos2010 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was not me personally, I just sent a request. That was the Oversight team. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall, personal information is usually not safe. There is a reason you do not know who I am in real life. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking, any time you broadcast information in the open for anyone to see, it is no longer safe. Anything you post here is seen by many and most often is archived by several dozen bots. Once said or shown, it is out there for world to see forever. This is not just Wikipedia but all aspects of the internet. Noone should post anything they do not want the world to be able to see for the rest of eternity. Even with someone from Oversight popping in and removing the info, a past version of it will still likely be out there forever. Pure Evil (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I am an oversghter. I regularly remove information that is personal, or that is meant to insult or hurt other people. I then have the option of removing that information from the history as well ("I rewrite history"), but that is only limited to this site. If you make a screeenshot now, that information is there, even if I remove it from the history tomorrow. I have no control over what you do with the screenshot. So, perhaps in a very pointed manner: If you think standing on the town square, holding a large sign with the piece of information is a bad idea, you likely shouldn't be adding it to this site. Note also, we are here for a purpose (of building an encyclopedia). What other people do in the time when they don't write for Wikipedia shouldn't concern me much. Eptalon (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a page

Please see here. Thanks fr33kman 14:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it does not say how to create a page yourself. (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try Wikipedia:Article wizard (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in the end, it says "type article name", then i do it and it doesn't work. (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the problem here as not "what to I put on the new page I want to create?" and more "How do I create the page I want to write?" to cover this second part (creating a new article itself), there are two common ways. The first is by clicking on a red link. If you are reading something and see a red link, that is a link to a page that does not exist. By clicking that link, it will take you to the function to create that page. From there, you would follow the steps covering what you should do when creating a page, preview it to see that is what you wanted to say and then hit save when you are happy with the finished project. And then you go back and re-edit the whole thing to fix it the way you ment it to be.. 4x... maybe that part is just me..
The second way is to type the page title you want into the "search Wikipedia" bar. If the title does not already exist, you will be taken to a search result page with similar results to what you are looking for. What you were looking for may be in there, but as it likely isn't, At the top of the listings there should be the line "Create the page "Some title" on this wiki! See also the search results found." where Some title is the page name you searched for. just click the red text link and then its the same steps as in the form above.
There are other ways, but these two are pretty much the easiest to deal with for many people.
You always need to consider if the page needs to be created. This is less of on issue with the first form as someone else thought it was a page that was needed when they red-linked it. Though they could have been wrong.. The second form, it is all on you to decide if the topic is notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. The guidelines on notability (w:WP:GNG) covers that pretty well. Just because you feel the topic is notable enough for inclusion, others may not agree and the page could be nominated for deletion where a consensus is sought to see if the community decides to either keep or delete the page. Pure Evil (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But i use the wikipedia app. (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To build on what Pure Evil has said, there are three really easy ways to tell if it's an article Simple wants: 1) Go to an official page, such as the "requested articles page" at WP:REQUEST and pick one. 2) If has the article, it's usually okay to make a version (but translation is hard, so I usually write from scratch). 3) If you go through an article and see a red link, Simple usually wants that article. You click on the red link and you will be in the page to start the article. Just be sure it's good enough before you click "submit."
Here is a good way to get started. Pick a kind of plant or animal that you like. Say birds. Find a genus page for birds, say Aratinga. You see that we already have one article for the species in Aratinga, but not the others. They're red links. Go to the article that we do have, Sun parakeet, and look at it. Look at which taxonboxes it uses. Look at what kinds of sources it uses. Look at what kinds of categories and formatting it uses. Hit "change" and copy the text of that article. Then go back and click on one of the red links. Did the website that had a good source page on the Sun parakeet also have an entry for the Nanday parakett? (Yes.) You can use it to make the Nanday parakeet article. This works for most kinds of living things. I have a froggie a day habit myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't we also have a WP for non-articles with the greatest number of links to them? That's an even better bet than WP:REQUEST. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a page for requested pages and another for wanted pages. "Requested" lists the pages that people have asked for. "Wanted" list the pages most linked to where the page does not exist. Both have their issues. For requested, there is no guarantee that there is a real need for the page. It is only known that one person asked for it. That could be the only person on the planet who is interested or just one of millions interest4ed. there is no way to know. The wanted list is created from the total list of red-links on the site. Most often with these though, the redlinks are created by navigation template. For example, consider a template that links to every populated center in England. Random number says there are 1324 populated places there. If we had 500 page already created. that would mean there are 500 redlinks pointing to each of the 824 places. More likely than not, there is no real demand to get those 824 places created immediately.
I would suggest Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded as it covers a wide list of topics that are generally accepted to be important to include and there is a wide variety of topics to chose from. there is also a small wanted list on the new changes page. That list is generated from the wanted pages list and is supposed to include a variety of subject. The main problem there is that , since it is manually generated, it is often not frequently updated. Pure Evil (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I use dark mode, and even in light mode, red links don't appear.

There is also no way the page I want will be created if I put it on requested articles, and i use a tablet device. (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi protected edit requests

How to do semi-protected edit requests. (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go to the talk page and ask for the edit? We do not have the template for it. – Angerxiety! 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just curious. (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Angerxiety: I found the template, it's Template:Changesemiprotected. Kk.urban (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, too late, i do it in plain words. (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be fine. You can just add the template in there. – Angerxiety! 20:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm so new

Hi, I'm so new to here (yes I joined last year, but who cares), and I seriously need a help from you guys. Thanks!! Sparkschu Itai (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you need help with? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are here to help you. If you also need real time help we can be found on the IRC server or WP:DISCORD server. Bobherry Talk My Changes 00:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am even newer, anyhow, unrelated, I came here because I was blocked from en.wp, but I liked this place and so i stayed here. (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposing guideline clarification

I have proposed a change to clarify the guideline at Wikipedia talk:How to copy from another Wikipedia#Proposed change to text about broken images and templates. Any interested parties, please go there to see the proposed change and make any comments you have. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright of templates

Recently I learned that templates don't have copyrights and attribution is not needed (special:diff/8974105). I would like to know which global/local policy or guidelines, copyright law can justify this statement. I know that many templates lacking attribution have been removed from JA sister projects, so I don't think any global policy/guidelines can defend the claims above. Any kind of relevant information will be welcomed. Thank you for the attention. MathXplore (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that I said usually. It depends on what's in the template.
By the way, since I apparently messed up the link in my message to you, and don't want to fix it in the archive, here is what the link should have been. The template in question there was Template:Infobox French constituency.
Finally, note that the policy Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution mentions only articles, not other kinds of pages. If we are to require attribution for more than articles, we will need to update the policy. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newbie question

What's the procedure on Simple Wiki to report a page that seems overly complex? I will attempt to rewrite Beatrix Potter, but meanwhile, could someone let me know where tags or lists are for this sort of article? Als0, do y'all tag for "no references" as we do on English wiki? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good grief! The Tale of Peter Rabbit article is longer than the actual book. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try putting a {{complex}} at the top of the article or section? Eptalon (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we've got Beatrix into an understandable state. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlike En Wikipedia most of our sportspeople are not categorised by gender, so the small number that are in Category:Sportsmen seem pretty arbitrary. Should we devise something a bit more logical? Or delete Category:Sportsmen? Or leave it like this? The logical solution seems to me to apply gender to the sports where men and women play separately - so not for things like chess. Tennis is already divided. Rathfelder (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For now, I am leaning toward: One, category:Sportspeople, or something like that. No sportsman (category), no sports-transgenders (category), no Sportswoman (category), and no Sportsgirl (category, up to age 17?).--In "mixed doubles" in tennis: man-plus-woman team plays against another man-plus-woman team.--For now, I am fine with delete for category:Sportsmen. 2001:2020:31B:AB5D:D4F4:EECD:2BAF:4F9D (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

creation of a page wothout deletion

The articles I make keep getting deleted, how do I create articles without deletion. (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This resource may be helpful in your pursuit of information. Illusion Flame (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean particularly A1 (no context). (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That usually means we are looking at 2-3 sentences that don't tell the reader much. Or an infobox without much else.. Eptalon (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English Wikiproject wants to try to move to Simple...

Hello all,

The English Wikiproject "Women in Red", is having a discussion about whether to try to adapt some of their articles to this Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is here, Their project page is here. I told them to pick 3-5 articles with a high reach (well-known women, women that have been featured in the media recently), and try to get them noticed here, by getting a DYK hook.

Their concerns are mainly that as native English speakers, they would likely have problems contributing here. Oh, they also said that when comparing BLPs, we have a higher percentage of decent BLPs about women than EnWP.

I am writing this on this board, as they haven't, so far. Comments welcome, as always. Eptalon (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If they want to start a WikiProject, there's no problems in my end. The only thing that might be a problem is that WikiProjects usually go in userspace here, so it just depends on who wants to have the project in their userspace. --Ferien (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll see how they react. I don't think there's much we can lose... Eptalon (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for commenting on our interest here. Over the next few weeks, I'll have a go at creating one or two short "Simple" articles about outstanding women. Depending on how well they are received and viewed, I might be interested in continuing. At this stage, I don't think we have enough support to launch a Women in Red initiative here. Contributors may however be interested to know that only about 21% of the biographies on Simple are about women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A tip? I find it's easier to write in simple English if you do so from scratch rather than copypasting the regular English text and then trying to simplify it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With longer pages you can move to your own space to try out versions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have taken Eptalon's invitation to try a couple of articles, Augusta Savage and Julia Margaret Cameron. Thanks to all who are helping by editing. I hope to complete a few more famous missing women artists. I agree with Darkfrog24, it is easier to start from scratch than to try to "translate" existing articles. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closing the loop: I finished my five. The final three are Rosa Bonheur, Edmonia Lewis, and Cecilia Beaux. I picked artists that are well-known rather than currently in the news, so I can't come up with DYKs --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates: Good work, and thanks for these good additions! Thanks for the article on Edmonia Lewis. I learned about her recently and thought we should have an article on her.
I made some minor changes on the final three. If you have any questions about what I did, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the positive feedback Auntof6! All your edits were improvements :) I think I will continue to underlink, but will strive to do better. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
as to DYK hooks: we don't require that the articles be new. If they have the required length, any sourced statement can be used for a hook. Eptalon (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: It's probably especially important to link here, because our target audience can be less likely to understand terms we might think are common. For example, we once had a discussion about whether we needed to link the names of countries. You'd think people would recognize names of countries, cities, etc., but some of our target audience speaks languages where the names of those things can be quite different (Germany/Allemagne/Deutschland and Florence/Firenze, for example). -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be badly machine translated from Arabic. The Arabic version of the page is ar:الأشراف_الشرقية. I think the user who wrote the page has trouble writing in English. So what should be done? Kk.urban (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This website is supposed to be for people who are learning English. So I ask, what's the point in these articles if they are so confusing that nobody should understand them? I think either these articles need to be fixed (and I don't know how to do that, because I don't speak Arabic), or the user needs to stop writing them. Kk.urban (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Example: "It's a distinct A distinctive center with a high population cassava and characterized by the industry in Qana governorate, Within Egypt's Arab Republic and its population 129675." Kk.urban (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am only here because i like it, and at first because i got blocked from en, so this also has blocked and banned users from en. (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant that the articles should be written for people who are learning English. If they're written badly, that's counterproductive. Kk.urban (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
note, i have moved the page to Al-Ashraf Al-Sharqiya, which seems to be the real name of the village Eptalon (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IPs and permissions

Can IPs get granted any permissions, just curious. (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. Due to technical reasons, IPs can’t be granted permissions. If you would like to request permissions, you may create an account and do so here. Illusion Flame (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you intend to spend more time editing here, I would suggest you create an account. If you are at home, and always get the same IP people might recognize it. But just imagine you travel, and on the road you want to edit - you likely have a different IP. If you have a username, you log in to edit, and you can forget about all this. You log in you edit, you log out... Eptalon (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But i forgot my password and don't want to log in. (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
w:WP:LOSTPASSWORD Illusion Flame (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the email does not work. (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest just making a new account in that case. Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will just forget about it. (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]

RfD for my page, Wikipedia:Cabals

Wikipedia:Cabals needs a RfD discussion. (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears one has been started. Illusion Flame (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird change filter issue

I'm trying to add a header to my talk page but it seems to be triggering a change filter. I'm not sure why. 2600:1700:7410:1E40:0:0:0:1337 (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you trying to edit without a user account? —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: Yes. I have been editing without an account for a while - the usual IP doesn't know about things like undo or WP:VIP.
Recently I figured out how to customize my IPv6 address (note the 1337) - before I could hardly keep track of the IPv6s I use. Usually my IPv6 changes once every few months or so. Also of late, I've been gradually becoming more involved with the community as opposed to watching recent changes when I'm really bored.
I'm probably going to Create An Account™ at some point due to this thing, which I personally believe is very bad and wrong, and the fact I clear my cookies daily.
Until then, I'm just going to enjoy the time I have left. 2600:1700:7410:1E40:0:0:0:1337 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The filter says "Filter description: Global "ntsamr"-pattern spambot filter". The details are private so only an admin could see. It might be related to meta:User:Mathonius/Reports/Nothing to say about me really. Kk.urban (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done I added the header to your talk page. It's a global abuse filter that can only be edited by meta admins. I have taken a look, but can't easily work out why you faced that issue. As of the header on the talk page, I'm not certain that anonymous users are allowed to do that, but I don't see the problem in it. --Ferien (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! 2600:1700:7410:1E40:0:0:0:1337 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to request undeletion

I am trying to research how to request article undeletion and I do not seem to get it. Can someone please tell me how to go about that? Regards. Ankoyo (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use Wikipedia:Deletion review. MathXplore (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I got it. Ankoyo (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want something in your userspace undeleting just ask any admin and they can do it: no review needed in such cases. fr33kman 17:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to patrollers

Hello, fellow patrollers. I've noticed that a lot of biographical articles are missing a DEFAULTSORT, so I'm trying to go through and add one where needed -- a big job! When you patrol biographical articles, please make sure the article has a DEFAULTSORT if it is needed. For information when it would be needed in a biographical article, see Wikipedia:Categories#Sorting of people. Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Level 1 warnings

Some of the level 1 warnings have recently been adjusted to say "I am (editor)" instead of "Welcome to Wikipedia", the reason being it is more personal and more welcoming. This is something I don't really agree with, because saying who you are doesn't feel more welcoming than actually welcoming them to Wikipedia. So, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we should change to "I am (editor)" or whether we should keep it as it is as "Welcome to Wikipedia", so that we can be consistent with the warnings. --Ferien (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Especially problematic if that editors name is not the most welcoming.. "Hello, I am Pure Evil" ... not exactly welcoming to many. Pure Evil (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I accept usernames, but it is about others, and people have different opinions, so we should discuss this. (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My username is not Romanized, so unless the end user can read Japanese, they won't be able to figure out my username until they see my signature. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 03:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...or until they put it into Google Translate! -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
る=Ru. (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to revert back to how it was, as it's been a week and a general consensus towards keeping it as it is. I also realised after starting this that per the idea of bold revert discuss, it wasn't even necessary to send this to ST. --Ferien (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laparoscopy article

While World Laparoscopy Hospital should be deleted, i believe there should be an article about laparoscopy itself, I have also put it in requested articles. (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: the WLH page was already deleted. (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncategorised articles

I just came across New Zealand Order of Merit. It was without any visible categories. Only categorised as a stub. That meant, however, that is didnt appear in Category:Category needed or in Special:UncategorizedPages. I think this is a problem. How can it be fixed? Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put [[Category:Uncategorized stubs]] to it. (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once in a while I use AWB to go through stubs looking for ones that don't have any hardcoded categories. That's not a very good solution, though, partly because not all categories are hardcoded and partly because that's a tedious way to do it.
A similar issue is pages that are only in maintenance categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how can we change this? Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April fools

Should we start doing april fools jokes on here? (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not relevant. Illusion Flame (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind some jokes in Project or User space, but we don't do very much of it here. (For example, we've never done a joke RfD, while that is a common thing on en I believe) It's also August, so it's 8 months to go... --Ferien (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i know it is august, but we can prepare in march 2024. (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is one day, where a few people might put something on their userpage as a joke, and maybe on simple talk. "Preparation" isn't necessary. --Ferien (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Definitely not!! We are here to build an source of education for the world; not make jokes. I would consider such actions as being disciplinary in nature and a warning being issued. fr33kman 17:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What if we exclude article namespace, help namespace, and their talk pages? (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. NO name spaces. Come on dude, what is your reason for being here? To build an encyclopaedia or to play jokes and/or turn it into a social media site. There are TONNES of place of the net for that. fr33kman 18:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was just some idea I proposed. (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    understandable, but set your focus to editing articles and making the encyclopedia a better place. Focus on tht and you'll fit it! :) fr33kman 19:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh. (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, on en.wp and on en.voy, there has been April Fools content. Evidently, there isn't much of an appetite for it here, but it's a reasonable question. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe I'm being a miserable sod but I don't think there's anything funny about disrupting the project for a day. Sure I used to participate in it but then I grew up. The EN jokey AFDs have been repeated to death to the point that they're not remotely funny anymore. It's bad enough there - don't need it regurgitated here too. –Davey2010Talk 20:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just wanted consensus on my idea. (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say it's fine as long as it's kept in userspace. Anything on project pages though, like XfDs, can become confusing for editors who just want to get their work done. 2600:1700:7410:1E40:0:0:0:1337 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only wanted to brighten wikipedia, wikipedia also has a community side to it. (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The community side is in userspace. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what is "humour" in project namespace? (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've just never got into humour pages on simplewiki: I understand what you're trying to do (make it more fun) but it's always been like this and I don't recall anyone bringing it up before. I don't think it's needed. If I have something "community" to say to someone, I either do it on their talk page, via email or on IRC. fr33kman 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of the reason is that humor sometimes doesn't translate well across languages. Since some of our target audience is people whose English skills are not advanced, humor on any page could cause misunderstanding and confusion. Plus, this isn't a playground. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]