Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Forum for article improvement?

Yes, I know I am perhaps flogging a dead horse, but suppose there are articles out there that could be featured (at least at DYK), but that need a little extra work - I am no talking about the more or less huge workload required to get an article promoted to GA or VGA status. I am talking about very specific small things (e.g. finding reliable references), so that an article can be listed in DYK. As a very practical example, about 9 of the 12 substances listed in Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants can be used as pesticides; some substances like DDT are still used that way, because there are no (cheap) alternatives. In the last few days, I spent my time here fixing the red-links in the article; so the substances listed either have a stub article, or they are a redirect (Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins/PCDD and Polychlorinated dibenzofurans/PCDF both redirect to dioxin; note that dioxin itself is a stub). So, if I wanted the community to help get these articles into shape (without wanting to create good or very good articles), where would I list them? (Note also, that I do not have a background in chemistry, so I would really need the help there) --Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This page. That is one of the purposes of this page. Community input. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Articles containing explicitly cited English language text

Why is the sub-category "Article issues"? How is this an "article issue", its best to translate the article as it is asked for at WP:P(V)GA projects and a lot of people who are English speakers might not understand Arabic characters, Hindu text, Spanish names, etc. Nonetheless, the category is at the community backlog, if so, how can this be even taken care of? I consider removing "article issues" with Category:Translated articles. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Issue doesn't always mean bad. Issue just means "something to do with". All categories that are not subject categories but are administrative ones tend to fall under the the Article issues category. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
These articles definitely don't need to be in the backlog, but please don't replace "article issues" with "translated articles". They aren't the same thing. One way articles get put into this category is by using {{lang-en}}, which is used to give English text as compared to text in some other language(s). (See Fettuccine Alfredo for an example.) This doesn't mean the article was translated. I like to keep an eye on these language-related issues, so feel free to let me know if you'd like more information. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being an idiot, but I've looked at this category name for quite a while and still cannot figure out what it actually refers to. (Best guess so far: articles that contain English text with clear citations, which seems nothing like what's been discussed here.) Could someone clarify this for me? [+piccolo] 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at Fettuccine Alfredo. See the part at the beginning of the second paragraph that gives the English translation of Fettuccine al burro? Edit the page, and you will see how that is done. When you use that template ({{lang-en}}), the page automatically gets put into this category. It goes along with templates like {{lang-ru}} which flags Russian text and puts pages in Category:Articles containing Russian language text. You can see an example of that in Sergey Karjakin. I don't think the category for English is very useful, but it's there to match the other language text processing. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I know what it means, I just don't think having the sub-category named "Article issues". Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. :) The 'Article Issues' name is misleading, but seeing as there's no real category for 'things that are notable in articles', I think it's probably the best thing to use at the moment. [+piccolo] 02:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

I just expanded this article and would like the community to tell me if there's any mistakes that could be found that I forgot to fix (or needs to be fix) Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 17:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is worded a little awkwardly. Maybe "had found out he was gay" instead of "had find out he liked boys"? I think "liked boys" is a euphemism that we don't need here in our articles. Also, it would be good to put the reference for his being gay there where it's first mentioned. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I  Fixed it. Is there anything else visible? Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

New Pages

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the NewPages backlog is now completely gone. The patrollers have obviously listened to this ANI topic. Orashmatash (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on New Pages. You've made us look more efficient, a rare thing for us. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't just me, everyone helped out. I just hope we can keep the backlog down to a manageable size, because I must admit, the size of the backlog was terrible. Orashmatash (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion notification

Plesse head over to WT:RFD and join in on the discussion to determine what makes a high school notable. It seems to be in dispute. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 22:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Our mission

Wikipedia Song by teddy

I thought it was cute :) Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- causes a smile --Tenmei (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox University

This wiki has two separate and different templates {{Infobox University}} and {{Infobox university}}. They have different parameters and give different results. We probably should discuss how to standardize them, and then get volunteers to go through and make the articles that use them consistent. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One is just an older version of the other. I have fixed them up and am in the process slowly of updating the various articles that used the old version to work with the new parameter names. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick deletion problem

There are four articles coming up as needing QD, but there is no QD request or template on the pages. The articles may or may not be QD, but my question here is what is not working or broken.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Also there is no sign that the article pages have been edited to remove a QD notice. They are coming up on the Category page but I do not know how they got there.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
They all have in common that they link to a page in the navbox that was deleted. They seem to be the only articles, not userspace that do. Could that be it? . Not sure if that makes sense/is possible, but there is a pattern anyway. Gotanda (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Actually, there are two others that aren't coming up in QD. Nevermind Gotanda (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Making a null edit to the template seems to have worked. I believe it's an issue with caching. Chenzw  Talk  08:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, I think it's also possible to explicitly add the category to a page. That shouldn't be done, but might be done by someone who doesn't know about the QD templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look?

Can someone take a look at en:Roger Thomas (Iowa politician) and en:Philip Wise? I'm working on a set of improvements to ~300 articles like them over at en.wiki and when I'm done, I'd like to transwiki them over here. They aren't very "simple," but most of that is in proper nouns, which can't really be changed. Any ideas on what will need to be linked/changed if I move them over? I've been away from simple.wiki for long enough that I'm not really sure what "counts" as simple anymore. I won't be finished with the en.wiki part of the project for a while, so no hurry.

Template-wise, the move would also mean a small change to Template:Infobox officeholder (adding support for |prior_term=). It would also mean moving at least the en:Template:Compact election box no change templates and the current Iowa Representative and current Iowa Senator templates over. But the template stuff should be easy for me to do. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to do what you like. For us, biographies of Representatives in State Assemblies is a low priority. It is a level of detail that we rarely get to with our limited work-force. My inclination would be to take a look at the page on Iowa, and see if it gives an adequate picture of the state. Of course, that's a complately different kind of activity, but improving our pages on U.S. states is certainly a high priority (IMO). Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
My idea was more of a "I did this anyway, so why not move it to simple." It's not a big deal either way. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Your plan sounds good. Not a lot has changed since you were last active much. If you are doing it anyways you are more than welcome to put the work on both wikis as long as the language is simple. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya

Could someone rename the article back to Libya?--Rafy (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhh

I'm just wondering what is the difference between simple english and english, I mean isn't the same language? lol (Well I have not seen anything simpler between them lol) --190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What words are complex English lol --190.60.93.218 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages#Basic English and VOA Special English. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chembox woes

I would try to fix this myself, but I know nothing about template editing. Basically, as I was looking at Hydrofluoric acid, I noticed that there were a number of red-links at the top of the page related to sections missing in the Chembox template. Most of it looks rather like useful information - e.g. density, boiling point - and it seems like either an error in the template on that page or just missing information in the template itself. Could someone figure out which problem is causing this and fix it? I apologize for being incompetent, and thank you. (: [+piccolo] 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I know about enough to be dangerous when it comes to templates, but it looks like {{Chembox}} is trying to invoke other templates that are missing -- {{Chembox EINECS}}, {{Chembox RTECS}}, etc. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The Chembox template uses other "subtemplates" to format information depending on what data is being displayed. For example, if you specify a boiling point, {{Chembox BoilingPt}} is transcluded. If you specify the InChI parameters, {{Chembox InChI}} is transcluded, etc. As a temporary fix, you can remove the related parameters. As a permanent fix, it would be great if an admin could import the other Chembox templates. Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed but only for the example article. As you find more that need importing let me know. I just don't have time now to go and do them all. Because this is a complex template I don't want to do a "grab all" automated import so it will take awhile to do individually. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How about {{Chembox KEGG}}, {{Chembox ChEBI}} and {{Chembox VaporPressure}}. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be a burden, but we have red links to: Template:Chembox RefractIndex, Template:Chembox Structure, Template:Chembox Thermochemistry, Template:Chembox MainHazards, and Template:Chembox OtherCations. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox

Hi, can a template guru take a look at Template:Infobox? On Jeff Gordon, in the infobox, his name is displayed above the box, which looks odd to me. The enwp article has the name bolded and located inside the box. Can someone look at en:Template:Infobox to see what needs to be add to our template to get it to look like the enwp infobox? Goodvac (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox}} can be used both ways:

There are two different ways to put a title on an infobox. One contains the title inside the infobox's border, the other puts it on top as a caption. You can use both of them together if you like, or just one or the other, or even neither (though this is not recommended).

title
Text to put in the caption over top of the table.

above
Text to put within the uppermost cell of the table.

If you want your template {{Infobox NASCAR driver}} to show it within the box, use above. I made the switch for you, but feel free to switch it back to "title". Racepacket (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I see, thanks! That looks much neater. Goodvac (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making my mess of an infobox a little neater guys!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. It wasn't so much your fault, because all you did was copy the infobox from enwp and the problem was with the template over here. But it still looks odd; the content in the infobox is inordinately large. Goodvac (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Kinda my fault, I should have spent more time cleaning it up. I was thinking the text is oddly large too.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Could an administrator or person with global rollback kindly move User:Sgt. Detritus and the Piecemaker/Hardwood to Hardwood and suppress the redirect? I think the article is fairly complete now and ready for the live encyclopedia. Thanking you in advance, Sgt. Detritus and the Piecemaker (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Need some feedback

I just completed a c/e on the Amor Prohibido (song) article. I also finished what was asked for on the GA review (back from July 2011) while also adding more WP:RS per request. Can anyone give some feedback that would help the article pass WP:GA once nominated? I also have a question, a request was made that the "music video" section should contain sources (for the descriptions) however, the descriptions are the synopsis of the video. Similar to synopsis/plot sections of movies (on simple) they are not required to have a WP:S (or so I've seen example Bridge to Terabithia (2007 movie)). So are articles based on music that has a description on its music video should require a source? And if so, would the source be the video itself since there aren't any coverage of the video's description? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you with the questions about sources, but here are a few things that I think need to be changed:

  • "had helped write the song" - I'd rather see "also" than "had", but this may just be personal preference.
  • "Selena's choice of "stepping out" of Tejano music was liked by music reviewers." - I'm not sure what this sentence actually means. The best interpretation I have is that Selena chose to "step out" of the Tejano genre and pursue other styles, but it seems oddly worded for that.
  • "some of them being non-Hispanics." - Where this clause is positioned, it looks like it's modifying "Amor Prohibido".
  • "While it was prepared by Joe Ojeda, and Chris Pérez, the widower of Selena." - Sentence fragment.
  • For a section about "Background and inspiration", I'd like to see more details about the inspiration of the song. You say some things about how it was inspired by her grandparents, but don't go into detail about that, although it seems really interesting.
  • "that is mix with modern Latin pop and South American rhythms." - "Mixed", not "mix".
  • "The message of the song, describes a relationship between a man and a woman." - Don't need the comma here.
  • The "Composition" section seems a bit short in comparison to the others, but I'm not sure if there's actually more information you can add.
  • "A.B., wrote most her songs out-of-the style of "Tejano" and "Tex-Mex" (Texas-Mexico) music." - Don't need the comma. Also, "out-of-the style" seems odd; I don't really like the hyphens there.
  • "Which included seven number-one hits, both of which included the song "Amor Prohibido"." - Sentence fragment.
  • "Music Choice On Demand, selected several Selena music videos, including "Amor Prohibido", as a tribute to over 42 million homes nationwide." - Don't need the first comma.
  • "which made them wonder about Selena's father, Abraham Quintanilla Jr, and called him an "over-influential" to Selena." - I'm not sure how this is connected to the rest of the sentence at all. How does "seamless" relate to the influence of her father?
  • "The music video was filmed in Joshua Tree, California by Tango Productions." - I think - and I'm not sure (terrible at paying attention in grammar class - that there should be a comma after California.
  • "The music video begins when Selena running towards an open door in the desert." - "with", not "when".
  • "After Selena had spun" - Huh?
  • "The video ends with Selena and her boyfriend, running away from the world, and going into a new one together." - Don't need the comma after boyfriend.

Sorry about how most is this is editing/grammar stuff - I couldn't really think of any content that needed to be added, as I'm not familiar with Selena at all. Hope that's helpful. (: [+piccolo] 01:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I'll go ahead and fix everything you have stated. I really appreciated. BTW, I think I'm the only one who is familiar with Selena. *Shocker* lolz. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed I hope now it is ready for WP:PGA. I'll move this discussion to the talk page. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rule change for DYK

Last week I suggested a small rule change for DYK, but no one has commented yet :(Peterdownunder (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Stub work

Yo, SEWP. There's going to be some stuff going down with the stubs around here, and I'd like the community to get involved.

  • Firstly there are two stubs up for deletion, {{Nazi-stub}} and {{Iowa-stub}}, so please head to WP:RFD to offer your opinion.
  • Secondly I've suggested the creation of stubs relating to Physics and Chemistry articles, so please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project‎.
  • Finally I think this may be the tip of an iceberg, (not a huge one) so it'd be great if you could get involved!

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonayo's recent copy-paste spree

User:AJona1992 created a whole string of new articles recently by copying and pasting from En, but with a twist. Rather than the current articles, the copies are of old versions of the articles. At first glance, they appear simplified, or at least shorter, if you click the En interwiki link. However, following the historical link on the associated Talk page revelas them to be pure copy pastes without simplification. I started tagging them QD|A3 one by one, but there are a bunch of them on New Pages. The language is surely not simplified in vocabulary or sentence structure. Something as factual as List of music arrangers isn't bad, but I think all the rest need to go.

are pure copy-pastes.

In addition to these and the ones I tagged directly, there may be more, but that's all I can check right now. Anyone else care to clean up after Jonayo? Waste of time and very disruptive editing. Gotanda (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that these should be all QD'd. I have read your comments and agree with you that these older versions are outdated and possibly inaccurate. And copy paste sprees are disruptive. If you have to import or copy/paste then it needs to be one at a time, and they need to be worked on to get them to meet our standards immediately. And admins on SEWP do not like disruptive editors.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
In theory, there is nothing wrong with using an earlier version of En Wikipedia rather than the latest version for attribution. The basic idea is that each editor takes responsibility for his/her contributions to this wiki. What document is used as a starting point is a matter of personal judgment. Attribution is a legal requirement to comply with En Wikipedia's copyright license. Once the starting point is selected, it is up to the editor to 1) simplify the text, 2) verify its current accuracy, 3) provide sources to make the article verifiable. An article could fail on a number of fronts, but using a less than lastest version of En Wikipedia does not seem to me to be the relevant factor. Attribution should be honest -- if an editor did not work with the latest version as the starting point, he should not list the latest version. However, English Wikipedia of 2005 was a very different place - articles were more simple and there were fewer footnotes. So, an editor using a 2005 article as a starting point has a different set of tasks that comes with working from an older starting point. Racepacket (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Guitar solo is no longer a copy and paste of either the 2005 or the 2011 version of En Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
With respect, Racepacket, you're missing the point. Goblin 09:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
In fairness to Ajona1992, he has properly attributed the articles. The issue here is mass/copy pasting and leaving it for others to have to fix. And thanks to Racepacket for beginning that task.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
All of these were done in WP:AGF because of these statements "These articles are based on (or exact copies of) articles from a different language Wikipedia." so I don't see the problem with copying and pasting (from a different version) articles. Also this Category:En copy-pastes. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue is doing so many so fast without actually simplifying them. As mentioned above the fact its an earlier version or the attribution isn't the issue...its the not simplifying that he is commenting on. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem if its an earlier version. I did, however, when I had made the Frankie J article I did not realize that it was a hoax, however I cleaned it up after the issue caught my eyes. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well a little like your recent ventures at WP:PGA and WP:PVGA, please take one step at a time. If you copy one article over, make sure it's in a decent state, i.e. check the red links, check the categories etc. Don't do a whole bunch then worry about it later, that's disruptive. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that all of his transwikied articles should be deleted. Old version or not, they are still transwikied, and what's more, they will probably be out of date as well, seeing as they're old versions of EN articles. Orashmatash 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, the rules of Template:Enwp based (and Category:En copy-pastes) does not state I can not copy-paste (old versions) of enWP. Above all you want them deleted to illustrate a WP:POINT. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The doc of ENWP Based are instructions on when and how to use the template, and are by no means rules, so you shouldn't treat them as such. Also, we are not trying to demonstrate a point; merely saying that you can't keep copy-pasting articles from EN without simplifying them first. Orashmatash 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I knew that, I meant the written content of the categories. Secondly, I did not say "everyone" as it was a reply to you. You're trying to make a WP:POINT by stating that "I personally think that all of his transwikied articles should be deleted" even though User:Racepacket had simplified the articles in question. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Our rules do say articles can't just be copied over and left without simplification. So old version or new without simplification they can all be deleted. (except of course the ones racepacket has simplified.) To me what it looks like is you tried to slip by old versions so people wouldn't realize you had identical unsimplified copies. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually I had stated "the written content of those categories" not rules of Simple. Secondly, I choose old versions that were more simpler then the current version. The only article that slipped was Frankie J and the "Music of..." articles. The others, were modified somewhat or were already simplified already. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well there are quite a few here that weren't changed at all. That is enough for me to say you need to stop doing it and take one article at a time and fix it properly so you don't waste your time and that of other editors here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles about biography of a living person, technology or international relations change quickly with changed facts. However, articles about music or geography do not change very much over time. We have to trust the editor to know when to use the latest version and when it is good to use an earlier version as the starting point. I did not change Music of the United States because Ajona1992 had put the {{wait}} tag on it. I hope that he and other editors will look over my changes, because I am not an expert on music. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you Racepacket for rescuing the articles you simplified. I only had place the wait template because of this discussion. @Djsasso, well I'll stop the coping and pasting and will just stick with the way I create articles here. But I think the written content in those categories needs to be re-written to other new users won't make the same mistake I made the in the future. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Went to Patrol new pages this morning over my first cup of coffee, and... There are more. This time Jonayo managed to shorten the articles and try to simplify them a bit, but they are still a mess. Also, no attribution this time around. See National Cleavage Day (really?) and Chauchilla Cemetery. This is getting ridiculous. Any way of stopping this? Gotanda (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not copied and paste those two articles from enWP. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
So, they are your own work that just happens to be substantially the same as the text and references on En. It's all a coincidence? Come on. Doesn't pass the sniff test. More disruptive editing and disruptive protests at this point. Gotanda (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


It gets even better. I decided to have a look back a day earlier. Compare Little_Havana,_Miami with one of the earliest revision on En here. Plenty of heavy lifting. I'd be willing to bet the dozen or so quick new articles that follow in Jonayo's history follow the same pattern. I'd much rather spend a bit of free time I have today writing something than trying to block this flood of incoming copy pastes that add little to the wiki and do in fact cause problems. I wonder how long he's been doing this? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I had placed this on the talk page of Latin music:

"Although it is not forbidden in our guidelines, I think it extraordinary to copy over such an out-of-date page [18 June 2003]. On English WP most articles were sub-standard at that stage. Virtually all have since been improved. Also, the changes made here are minor, leaving us with a weak page when we might have had a much better one. I think it bizarre that a contributor who frequently appears on our central pages did not ask for opinions before he went forward with his plan. Now, it may simplest to delete the page and start again. Having the page in this state is likely to deter other editors". Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, "heavy lifting" means hard work. I am not sure that is what was intended above. Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing restriction

I have placed AJona1992 on an editing restriction. This is for a period of two months minimum. Regards, fr33kman 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposals

I am still a relative novice here, and can't find the instructions for proposing a page merger. I have discovered that in March 2011 User:Mattisse created UNESCO World Heritage Sites but that in June 2006 User:Bhadani created World Heritage Site. The scope and content are very similar. It seems to me that the title should be singular, not plural. Please help and advise. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I had already fixed this before reading this discussion. Now World Heritage Site is the root article and UNESCO World Heritage Sites a redirect. The later article had added nothing of note, and in any event the original was a simpler, shorter title. Macdonald-ross (talk)
I think we discovered the problem at about the same time. Thank you for your fix. I will use {{Merge}} next time. Racepacket (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome bot

Hi guys. I was just thinking, if someone had the time and dedication, maybe they could write a Welcome bot. Allow me to explain - on Wikimedia Commons, they have a bot that automatically welcomes new users. You see, I was tagging a page for QD, and the IP editor who created it didn't have a talk page, so Twinkle couldn't tell them that their page had been selected for QD. I thought that it would be a lot easier if a bot welcomed all new users automatically, IP's included. Would that even be possible? Just a thought. Thanks, Orashmatash 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome bots a very frowned on here. It has been brought up a few times and almost unanimously shut down. A bot welcoming you doesn't make you feel welcome and often accomplishes the opposite and pisses you off that a cold bot welcomed you instead of a warm human. Very many people get upset at auto welcomes. I know I hate it when bots welcome me on other wikis because it just creates spam for me. For that matter you shouldn't actually be welcoming IPs at all really since they are shared unlike specific accounts.-DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I see... Well, come to think of it, I don't really like being auto-welcomed either... Okay, no welcome bots. Thanks! --Orashmatash 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, no need. Welcome people personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Template categories

As some of you know, I am currently working on categorizing templates. I could use some input from folks who have been around here a while and have seen how the categories get used.

Templates are currently categorized in two major ways:

  1. By subject matter: countries, science, politicians, etc., a lot like the regular article categories
  2. By what kind of template it is: infobox and navigational box (aka "navbox") are the most common, and there are a few others

My question for y'all is: Do we need that second type of category? I don't think I would personally look for a template based on what kind of template it was; I'd look based on what it was about. I can work with both kinds of categories, but it greatly complicates things, so I'd like your input to be sure it's wanted. I'm up for maintaining that structure when I work on the 2000+ uncategorized templates; I just want to be sure I need to. Thanks in advance for your input. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I would do both still. I often go looking for templates that are a specific type. In fact I probably do that more than by subject matter. I would actually more likely cut the first one. Was sort of surprised when I saw someone categorizing by subject matter. So I think that highlights that different people use them differently. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep both. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. I will keep both. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What does "Mark this page as patrolled" mean in practice?

Like many people, after the recent call to patrol new pages, I went work on that. In most cases it is pretty clear. However, sometimes things slip through, and other times I'm just not sure what to do. A recent case in point is Separatist_movements_(India) it has been lingering in the queue with nobody willing to talke the plunge and mark it. New pages created since then have been marked, so I am guessing others editors may be wondering too. The En page and most of the parallel pages the articles links to are all templated up on En with NPOV, cite needed, etc. I'm tempted to mark it as patrolled to clear the queue, but does ticking the box mean I think the article is "OK" (whatever that means). Anyone else have any thoughts? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, marking a page as okay means that the editor has agreed that it meets our basic minimum standards. fr33kman 02:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been going by the practice on enwiki as I understand it. Specifically, I look at the article to be sure it looks like an encyclopedia article -- not obvious vandalism, has actual content, etc. It can be deficient as far as not being wikified, not having references, etc.: if the only problem is those kinds of issues, I tag it as needed and mark it patrolled. I would not mark one patrolled just to get it off the list; if I mark an article patrolled, I have taken responsibility for it not being junk. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. I went ahead and marked it patrolled, but also tagged it complex, wikify, and neutral. I'd say the article really is a mess, but there may be something salvageable there. Hard to see where to begin though. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Everything has to be seen in the light of our particular needs. Much is wrong about this page, and correct action would probably be to propose the page in question for deletion. The placing of 'complex' and 'POV' tags on pages solves no problems. Pages that look to be in real trouble should be proposed for deletion, then others can decide on their potential value to the wiki. Otherwise the pages will lie there for years, putting readers off. This is the kind of topic that needs to be written from scratch; simplifying or copying the dreadful enWP article is not the way to go. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Move "Zwijndrecht" to "Zwijndrecht, Belgium"

The current article Zwijndrecht is about the Zwijndrecht in Belgium, and since I just created a stub about Zwijndrecht, Netherlands, I wondered if someone would please move Zwijndrecht to Zwijndrecht, Belgium? Then, please turn Zwijndrecht into a redirect to Zwijndrecht (disambiguation). (I copied this approach from Frankfurt) -- Thank you! Bicycle bell (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article, and updated all links to Zwijndrecht to point to the new page. I have not changed Zwijndrecht to redirect to the dab page, however, because the standard is to have Foo (disambiguation) redirect to Foo, not the other way around. You should now be able to change Zwijndrecht to a dab page, and change Zwijndrecht (disambiguation) to redirect there.
For future reference, when there are only two meanings for a term, it's simpler to use hatnotes on each of the pages instead of creating a dab page. You would put a hatnote on each page referring to the other. Let me know if you'd like more information on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay thank you, it's looking great. :-) I did not realize that the standard was to have "Foo" as the main dab page to which "Foo (dab)" then simply redirects, instead of the other way around, since I just happened to stumble across the Frankfurt example. Good thing to know.
And in the case of Zwijndrecht, I think a dab page is the only way to go, because I don't believe that any of the two Zwijndrechts has more right than the other one to be "the main Zwijndrecht" (i.e. without country specification in the title), so the current solution works for me. Thanks again! -- Bicycle bell (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This weekend's editing challenge - come and help

What do a British actor Peter Postlethwaite, a Nobel Prize winner Simon van der Meer, an American singer and songwriter Phoebe Snow, a Kenyan marathon runner Samuel Wanjiru and a Nazi war criminal Sándor Képíró have in common? The answer is, of course, very easy. All died during 2011 and none of them have an article! This weekend I invite you in joining me in a huge bio-stub creation project. I want you to help create a 4-5 line bio stub for everyone listed on the Deaths in 2011 page. There is a huge range of people to choose from, so take your pick. The hard work is done as I have already added a reference to a news report on each person. You just need to read it and create the stub, add the references, maybe find some further info, look for an image, use the BD template, give them a category, and it is done. To avoid edit conflicts, create your page, add an Inuse tag, and save it straight away. Editors looking at the Deaths in 2011 page will know that blue linked articles have a page or are being worked on, and so can move to the next interesting red linked person. With 242 names there is a lot of choice. Look forward to seeing your work in the Recent Changes.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have no problem with helping you with that. I'll add it to my to-do list. Orashmatash 07:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm in! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, positive idea. Gotanda (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I can take care of all of the hockey players who died in the plane crash. Might as well take care of them since that is what I normally edit anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I've created two of the Australians not yet created, but I don't think I'm ready to work on Simple while it is so "empty" -- i.e. I'm not sure which references are missing because they're not "simple" and when they're just missing, though I assume it is mostly the latter. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
At halfway through the weekend we have 28 new articles so far, only 214 to go!Peterdownunder (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, wait a minute! Here in the States the weekend is just starting! :) --Auntof6 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
XD I know! DJDunsie (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Results

Thanks to everyone who took part in this project, which was announced with no warning or preparation time. Over the weekend there were 48 new articles on biography created. Some were short bio-stubs, but many were more extended. This involved 15 editors and one IP. Sadly during the same period, another 7 names were added to the Deaths in 2011 page, so there is still plenty to do. But thanks to everyone who took part, Peterdownunder (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It was fun; do another one! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I do apologise Peter, I only created one and it wasn't even a stub. I didn't have much time on my hands last weekend, so again, I apologise. If you do another one, I'd be more than happy to help. Cheers, –Orashmatash 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Terms of Use update

I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is discussing changes to its Terms of Use. The discussion can be found at Talk:Terms of use. Everyone is invited to join in. Because the new version of Terms of use is not in final form, we are not able to present official translations of it. Volunteers are welcome to translate it, as German volunteers have done at m:Terms of use/de, but we ask that you note at the top that the translation is unofficial and may become outdated as the English version is changed. The translation request can be found at m:Translation requests/WMF/Terms of Use 2 -- Maggie Dennis, Community Liaison 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that someone is going to translate the new Terms of Use from Lawyer English to Simple English before it is linked here? Racepacket (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Not likely we don't simplify things that are legalese for legal reasons. Simplifying can change the meaning which of course can lead to legal complications. Its one of the reasons we don't do fair use images. Simplifying the legal stuff would be a nightmare that would likely cause issues. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing deletion debate

(4953) 1990 MU was deleted with the edit summary "RfD: Result of a deletion discussion". Why can I not find the archive of that discussion? SpinningSpark 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the article is lumped in with others at an RfD. For example if we deleted all the articles with "Villages in Pakistan" (for example) we wouldn't have an individual RfD for each one. We'd have a single RfD for all the articles. Normandy (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, technically, that answers my question which was phrased as why but what I really meant was where the f*** is it? SpinningSpark 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the unnecessary incivility there....the article was deleted because of Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Asteroids. Only (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Punk music

WikiProject Punk music

A Punk music WikiProject has been created, to improve and add to the small number of punk rock-related articles on Simple.
If you are interested please go to the project page and maybe even join!
Thanks! - Benzband (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit/prose review of Wheeling Tunnel

Could someone(s) please take a look at Wheeling Tunnel and leave some comments on the talk page in regards to copyediting and rewriting? I'd ask at GA, but I know it's not up to GA standards yet with the redlinks. I'd like to get the prose up to GA level while gradually adding the redlinks. Thanks, Only (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Gladly give a review. Regards, Albacore (talk · changes) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
As the editor who did the En Wikipedia GA review of the article, I will also take a look. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any input? I've done all the comments from others so far. If not, I'll start working on redlinks eventually. Only (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, with no more input, I've placed it at WP:PGA if anyone would care to comment. Only (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Side discussion – the use of IRC

I would like to make it clear that the use of IRC in Wikipedia-binding decisions should be seriously discouraged. I would like to understand the community's opinion on this as well since I find it very strange that a user can make a plea off-wiki and be unblocked from an indef block. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've very strongly urged people to not do anything that results in an on-wiki action off-wiki because we need the paper trail. IRC should not be used for anything other than social interaction with your fellow editors. I am only ever on it because I have to be since I have noticed a disturbing trend of people forgetting they need to have any sort of discussion that affects on-wiki actions on the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning Fr33kman's decision here, but I find this rather strange. I don't see how a request for unblock off wiki should be treated any differently from a request for unblock on wiki... –Orashmatash 17:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Because on-wiki is visible to all, off-wiki is invisible to some (i.e. those who don't use IRC). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I know that, but still, it's the same editor asking for the same thing at the end of the day; an unblock. The only difference is that it's off wiki. So the decision shouldn't be any different unless Fr33kman seriously felt that Purplebackpack89 was being sincere. –Orashmatash 17:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The decision-making process, as with all other Wiki-based proposals, should be discussed on-wiki. That's obvious. Decisions of this nature should not be made off-wiki. Ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. –Orashmatash 17:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
@TRM: again, indefinite means just that, it does not mean infinite. I have said this loads of times before. I do sometimes block indef when I'm unsure of the period of the block but know it needs to start right away. There was no discussion happening on PBP's talk page that could really be considered a community ban discussion. Therefore I was still the blocking admin and could alter the block if I felt it right. When a person is truly contrite and shows they have no intention of continuing being disruptive I believe a block should generally be undone. Blocks are not punishment remember. We don't keep a person blocked because they called you a vandal, we keep them blocked only if they are a danger to the wiki. @Orashmatash: yes, I believe PBP has every intention of changing, I wouldn't have changed it if I didn't believe that. Now, as for IRC, things happen on IRC all the time and for loads of projects, however I believe I am allowed to speak to a blocked user via any means. I was reevaluating my initial block; I saw no actual discussion about banning going on, so the blocking admin still gets to reevaluate (or indeed any admin for that matter). Now, that the community ban discussion is underway, changing it would be a totally different bag of peanuts. fr33kman 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I must say that I agree with Fr33kman's response. I understand why he did what he did, and I can understand TRM's POV here. But Fr33kman is the blocking admin and has every right to reconsider via IRC or wikipedia. Sorry. –Orashmatash 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I'm missing the point here. What is the reason for the change in block? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We're splitting this discussion into several places. This part seems to be the use of IRC, which we can agree should not be used at all for on-wiki discussions. We have no paper trail to see what PBP said to fr33k to allow him to change the block. No-one who doesn't use irc is able to comment or make their opinions known. IRC is not WP Normandy (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
As for changing his behaviour, I've seen no sign of contrition, just more vitriol. Hence why I want to know what led to the block being rescinded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Side discussion: I can understand how IRC might seem helpful and how email communication might allow a cooled-down discussion. But, I would prefer to see all block & unblock discussion happen on-wiki. Sometimes an editor is blocked through a public process and then suddenly unblocked through a private (or less public) process. People who support this project and make it work may then have no way of knowing what was discussed or agreed. That does not build understanding of standards in the community. I mean that in general, not just in relation to the discussion of PBP89; it applies to others as well. Gotanda (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fr33kman. Indefinite is called so for a reason. However, I do also believe that there is a need to retain a record of proceedings, for other administrators reserve the right to review the decision and advise accordingly. For that, a log should have at least been made. Whether it would be faked or not is irrelevant, in my opinion, because our administrators are elected because they are trusted members of the community.
In either case, understanding the dynamic nature of on-wiki issues, a hard rule definitely must be in place. This is not the time to discuss the use of IRC yet - so what if we all come to the understanding that off-wiki discussion on such things are not permitted? The main issue here is the editor's ban. If the community has made up its mind, no amount of IRC and/or other on-wiki discussion by other parties can change the decision anyway. Let's get our priorities right - ban discussion first, restrictions on IRC (and other off-wiki communications) later. Chenzw  Talk  16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle talk page warnings

Does anyone know why Twinkle's talk page warning system isn't working? Goodvac (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the result of the recent software "improvement". Previous experience shows that it takes a few weeks for the devs to sort the bugs out. In the meantime, Twinkle simply isn't working as it should. Orashmatash 23:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Your quotes around "improvement" convey exactly my thoughts. It's frustrating that the developers roll out new software with bugs that bork functionality. It makes me wonder if they ever test it. Goodvac (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It is working only to make changes on existent pages (i.e. not being able to create a page when attempting to send a message).” TeLeS (T @ L C S) 23:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice to know, thanks. Goodvac (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The devs do test their software, but obviously not with Twinkle, since it always seems to break when the software is updated. The dev's testing ground is here, but there's not much you can do there unless you're testing code, but it's a good way of finding out what the latest software update will look like. Orashmatash 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure they test that it works, but they don't test if it messes up user scripts. I'll keep that site in mind. Goodvac (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Twinkle has always been a not officially supported script at simple because it was mostly just copy pasted here from en (but we don't have all the same templates etc it uses that they do) with some tweeks by an editor who has gone mostly inactive. So any time any changes are made it breaks here and the only one here who knows enough about twinkle to fix it is not active. Not all the functionality has ever been brought over either. So to sum it up its a "As-is" script unless someone takes the time to figure out its complexities to "fix" it again. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
To update Twinkle, you only need to know how to program in JavaScript. I'm sure there's another editor on this wiki who knows JavaScript other than EhJJ. Orashmatash 18:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is at least one (me). Is this the problem with not being able to create talk pages with warnings? πr2 (talk • changes) 23:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats the problem, you can add warnings if the talk page already exists. But it can no longer create a new page automatically.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Fixed it. Tell EhJJ. User:PiRSquared17/testwarn.js. πr2 (talk • changes) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Not working for me. Talk page opens, edit warning box opens, says it is creating a message, but then nothing. Peterdownunder (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you import the User:PiRSquared17/test.js ? and disable normal twinkle ? If so, all I can say is that it works on Safari with no errors now. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
And clear the cache. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I am using FireFox now and it is working. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else test it? The skin.js page should look like User:PiRSquared17/vector.js. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Its working! Excellent work PiRSquared17. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :). I'm always glad to help with technical problems. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Note: DJSasso added my correction to EhJJ's Twinkle. πr2 (talk • changes) 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing Wikipedia:Simplifying Copy Editors (WP:SCE)

Arguments in favor of the project

Since WP:PR was no longer active and was nominated for removal/deletion, a lot of resources because of the results of the consensus was taken away for non-native English speakers, ESOL, children and adults learning English. If someone who isn't that good at writing articles in Simple English or simplifying advanced English, like myself for an example, may have a hard time trying to figure out minor mistakes/errors in sentences that we (or the person who wrote the article) believe is correct, until proven wrong. Projects such as WP:PGA/WP:VGA, which highlights/promote and recognize excellence in content, is like a battleship with users who are non-native English speakers and children alike. Reasons why, (1) users who participate in reviewing articles against the criteria, tend to be somewhat aggressive in reviewing articles that are in obvious shape of a premature nomination. Users, particularly children and users who has disabilities, will take the judgments to the heart and can even make them feel ashamed of themselves and their works they had created. (2) Users who has MDD, Autism (or any form of Autism such as Asperger syndrome) will eventually give up on articles that were demoted at nominations, during their first few times; if they were told that their articles still needs improvements and are no where near GA status. (3) Other users who are non-native, will fight the argument. Users who has Anger issues and Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder just to name a few, will believe that their point is in fact valid even if rules state otherwise. These pointers can be stop by warnings and even a block, however, why should their disorders be the the blame of their actions that are sometimes uncontrollable? So I decided to think about a way that could help users who suffer these disorders and the new users who who will join Simple English Wikipedia. This project can also help users who are native English speakers who would like a second opinion on their articles.

What will the project be for and how can it be helpful to Simple?

As what I had presented above, the project can help users who are children or has disabilities and developmental/mood disorders (or even all users) get a copy-edit (c/e) of their article(s) performed by native English speakers who can assist with simplifying. With this tool, their articles can have a momentous advantage at passing WP:PGA/WP:PVG. The results of their accomplishment(s) would/can help build a sense of happiness and other positive moods. The promotion of their articles will, not only, give them inspiration into creating/expanding more articles, it can lower bad tension being built from them and can also make them feel better of themselves because they had accomplish a mile stone and could help push them into achieving even larger goals. The project is nothing like what WP:PR was. Users simply request that an article should be copy-edit and simplify. An experienced user will perform the c/e and simplification as requested.

Who will perform the simplifying and copy-editing?

Helpful users who are proud to help out others are the right editors for this job. As well as, native English speakers who can spot even the littlest mistakes and errors on articles that others cannot. Everyone can simplify an article (ie., equivalent --> the same). However, users who are not native English speakers, children, ESOL and adults learning English don't have the ability to transform big words into small or simpler ones. Copy-editing (ie., the clothes cannot fit me ---> the clothes did not fit me) is more difficult to perform. Even if someone believes their article(s) will pass at projects aimed for, their article can be demoted if there is an outstanding number of problems presented in their article(s). C/E-ing can help users understand the problems or mistakes they had made and can help them to not perform those mistakes/problems again in the future.

Conclusion

The WP:SCE project can help anybody and everybody alike to help their article(s) pass at projects aimed at. They can simply request one (or a maximum that should be discussed if this project is created) article(s) on the nominations page and a advanced user can help with simplifying and c/e-ing the article. Users who are children, non-native, ESOL, has disabilities and/or developmental/mood disorders can find this tool extremely helpful. This project can help fill in the missing hole of WP:PR. Also at WP:PGA/WP:PVG, articles nominated will pass the requirements and will lower premature article(s) from being nominated. Also, because of the 3-week rule, users can spend their time with improving the article at WP:SCE. BTW, sorry for this BIG argument in favor of WP:SCE, just wanted everyone to understand the purpose and reasoning behind this proposal. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Support the project

  1. As nom. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. It will get the first authors of articles and the later copy editors to work together in a spirit of cooperation. Racepacket (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    Co-operation and collaboration have worked informally for years, and that is actually how most things get done here. User A writes article, and asks User B on his/her talk page to copy edit it. User B does so, and leaves other comments, then User A fixes those comments. When User B is happy, User A then normally nominates the articles with users B, C and D adding further comments then supporting or opposing, and so on. Does this sound familiar? Completely unneeded extra bureaucracy! Goblin 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!
    I understand the point made by Bluegoblin7. However, I see that there are people who get angry about others editing "their" article. There are people who welcome others. Bluegoblin7 assumes that everyone is in the second group. This plan would help volunteers tell the difference between the two types of editors. It provides a way to invite in other editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"The free encyclopedia that anyone can change" is one of our mottos, so the article doesn't really "belong" to anyone. I haven't seen anyone get angry at people editing the article that they created. Diff? –Orashmatash 19:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the project

  1. For the same reason I thought we should merge Peer Review...we don't have the number of editors necessary for all these side projects which end up causing people to spend more time administering projects than actually fixing articles. And more likely than not this discussion will be further proof of it as we waste time arguing about it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Well how does your argument pass the ethos of the reason Simple English Wikipedia was created? There is more advanced users then non native ones here. I believe this is a helpful project that can be very active if its given the chance. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Quiet easily....We were created to have simple english. That there are more advanced users and less advanced users doesn't change anything. Our goal is to have as much notable content in simple english as possible. With the number of editors we have that means streamlining processes and cutting out as much unnecessary junk as possible. Just because our articles are in simple english doesn't actually mean the editors should be non-native speakers. In fact there is a great argument that people who don't know english well shouldn't actually be editing simple.wiki because it is extremely hard to write simple english for even native speakers. Much harder than writing normal english. So whether or not an editor is native or not is of lesser concern than us getting as much good content as possible. Thus time wasted is content lost. We have based on the stats page that is I forget the link to at the moment (no not the one you can go to in the toolbox) is 19 active editors.... Of those very few are probably interested in copy editing other peoples articles. It becomes obvious very quickly that these processes eat up what little editor time we have. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    (e/c) I believe this project would be even more active then WP:PGA/WP:PVG projects combined. We should have more helpful projects then none at all. The only "side projects" would only be this one, if created. WP:PR is long gone but with this project, users can benefit with it. I believe that its better to have articles that are extremely well written (encyclopedia) then stub articles that are not comprehensive at all. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. This won't work. As Djsasso said, we do not have the editors to support this kind of thing, and like Peer Review, it will crash and burn. Talk pages are better for this kind of thing. Sorry, Orashmatash 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    (e/c) Talk pages is not a suitable way for users to get help. They don't even know if that user will even help them, why should they waste their time asking? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Talk pages are a more than suitable place to get help. As long as you don't ask an inactive user, then you will get help, so if an editor asks another editor to copy-edit their article, then I can't see any problems. Orashmatash 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    You won't get help if that user is busy in RL, not a helpful user or does not know the basic rules of WP:RULES and other guidelines. C'mon people have a heart. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Ask one of these lovely people. They're always active, and you can check the table whenever you want a c-e. Thanks, Orashmatash 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    How is this even assailable to users who has disabilities or even new users? I just found out about it when you replied to this message. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter, again, talk pages are probably more suited to this, rather than recreating what is basically another Peer Review, but this one can be used to make content better, which is essentially what PR was already doing (telling editors what can improve their articles). In my opinion, just a slightly improved version of Peer Review, with a few extra features chucked in. Still no. Sorry, Orashma tash 20:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Talk pages are not really suitable, the consensus was to ask on WP:ST for peer reviews. Secondly, WP:PR was only for reviewing not improving content, simplifying and helping users who has disabilities. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my mind on this one, I'm afraid. I don't think we need it, really. So No. Orashmatash 20:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    And that's ok with me :) I respect your reasons on why. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. for the sole reason that, after reading through your arguments, I still have no idea exactly what you're proposing. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    The project is to help users get a copy-edit and simplification of their article for projects they are aiming at. This project can help users who are limited in English, ESOL, children, users who have disabilities and disorders alike. All users are also welcomed to nominate their own articles as well. Hope this helped, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. So... because PR is closed we're going to call it something else and assume it's going to work? No. Normandy (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, this project is nothing like PR. Please read the arguments in favor of the project to have a better understanding on the proposal. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    I did read it. I still don't really understand it. I guess you are trying to get a project where people will ask you to review their edits fixing mistakes and cleaning up articles... like what we do already but putting some red tape around it. It's like another PR, which didn't work, therefore this won't either. I know I wouldn't be helping there as I didn't do it much at PR either. So far you have one person in support of this; you. Are you going to do this yourself? Its happened before that people start projects and they fail soon after. Hell, I actually did one not too different to this, (this one, and it failed. It was basically people in a "team" choose an article and work on it until its a good article. It failed. Because as soon as an article is chosen that we don't have an interest in then we won't help. It won't work. Its a waste of time, effort and resources. Sorry, try doing it without the bureaucracy and see what happens... Normandy (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  5. I have no clue why we're voting here, but apparently, we are. So, count my "vote" as oppose. If people want to put themselves into a category of "Wikipedians who are willing to copyedit" then more power to them. However, I think a "project" is pointless. Only (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  6. I have no interest in this proposed project. I vote no. Patrick0Moran (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  7. I agree with Orashmatash. Talk pages are very useful for coordinating article improvements. DJDunsie (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  8. Heh. No. Goblin 12:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Comments about the project

  • I do not have accurate figures, but at the moment SimpleWP is "run" by between 20 and 30 named editors, who regularly contribute. When WP:PR was still there, we had very few pages sit there for a long time. Little was being done to improve the pages, and most editors I know ended up "knowing" that listing an article there would not lead to its improvment. SO, closing down WP:PR was only a logical step (there was little opposition, if I recall). The project proposed above has similar goals, and will probably fail in similar ways, if it gets through. "Another" approach I see is listing an article that needs improving at simple talk. Specific questions on what to improve can be handled on the article talk page (that's what it is for, after all). When we see that the "requests for improvement" at WP:ST come so often that they are disrupting, we can create a "subpage", or "project page"; not now. One of the problems of this wiki is that structures need to be found that are lightweight. Of the time spent on wiki, most should be in the area of improving content or creating new content, least should be used for various forms of "administration" (note that page patrolling/finding articles for deletion is also administration). In this context, I see the proposal above as a good one; but the "administrative cost" it brings us as too high; we should therefore seek to get its benefits, but without the drawbacks. --Eptalon (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well myself and User:Orashmatash were active at WP:PR the last weeks of it being on here. However, I do agree with you. I had tried asking for users on WP:ST for a review of some of my articles and it has been good so far, but on average only one user comments on my request for a PR from them. This project can help everyone, not only users who has disabilities, even though the target is to help users who has a hard time understanding English, let alone writing a good article. I think, if this project is created, that we should seek someone who is actively online and willing to help out to be the director of the project, so in this case this project will never be inactive or useless after a few months or years. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If people didn't have time or interest in doing peer reviews, they won't have time or interest in this, either. No one is saying it wouldn't be helpful, just that it doesn't get enough participation to pull resources away from other things. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There's c/e being done everyday by almost everyone. Why can't a project that is helpful be used? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Trial

Can I do this project as a trial and move it to User:AJona1992/Wikipedia:Simplifying Copy Editors (similar to WikiProjects)? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Don't need to ask questions for anything to do with your userspace. Goblin 22:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
Just wanted to asked. Its best to see what the community thinks :) Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Simplifying Copy Editors

Wikipedia:Simplifying Copy Editors

A Simplifying and copy-editing project has been created, to improve articles that are aimed to be nominated at WP:PGA and WP:PVGA.
If you are interested please go to the project page and maybe even join!
Thanks! - Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyrighted addition

An IP user has added content like this (insecure diff). I believe this is copyrighted from the website I posted on the user's talk page. Is the content OK to use? πr2 (talk • changes) 00:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your actions look fine to me. At the bottom of the website it does say "© 2010 Nazaria-i-Pakistan Trust." so... yup. Good work, good spot. Normandy (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

I have come across an odd addition to the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 article. Please could somebody check it out as I think it may be vandalism. Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

English Learners

I have been around here for months, and this appears to be a very good project (or at least the ideas behind it are admirable). However, what I have noticed since discovering this Wikipedia is that most users have a comprehensive, excellent command of the English language already. As someone who was born and raised in the United States, my first language is English too, which is not uncommon in the least on this wiki. It is not often that I have upon a user who was just beginning to learn English, or who did not appear to understand how to communicate in the language. Indeed, most Simple users appear to be native speakers of English, from a Western, Anglophone background, and if English isn't their native language, they usually are well-versed in conversational English. While the presence of native English speakers trying to help those less immersed in the English language is certainly not a problem, there is a possibility for there to be more helpers than people being helped. Personally, I dislike the idea that of a wiki that has less people trying to learn English and more Westerners building a community around the idea (when they are not effective at it). Not saying that the community is ineffective, but I am not sure about whether non-English speakers are actually benefiting and joining the community. Has anyone tried promoting this site to non-English Wikipedias? I am not sure about this, so let me ask: does anyone here know of/remember a case of someone struggling to learn English (or who was obviously a non-native speaker and had trouble expressing her or his thoughts) and editing here frequently? Or just looking for help here with English? Thanks. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in the audience, too. Here are a couple of thoughts:
  1. The technology does not help us learn about the users. If we advise users not to say much about themselves on their user page, then of course we don't know much about them. The Foundation has not funded any market research on us, and if they did they would find out (as you suspect) that we are not widely known about.
  2. Writing a foreign language is very much more difficult than reading it. It's almost impossible to contribute text until one's grasp of the language is quite good. It follows that our contributors do (generally) have quite good writing skills. We are not in the business of directly teaching people to write English, but to create an encyclopedia which does much of what English wikipedia does, but in simpler form. That is difficult enough.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I have worked several times with English classes from Japanese universities where they have been set tasks to write articles here. This has been an interesting challenge, especially as I have no Japanese, and they have very liyyle conversational English. Some of their efforts developed into good quality articles, some are still in the sandbox as they are close to unreadable. It was difficult to help them when neither can communicate. However writing is not an easy task. The people who contribute regularly are a small group, but the readers are a vastly larger number. And also writing in Simple English is not a simple task.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Peterdownunder, it is good to know that there are foreign students using this as a learning tool. That seems like a very interesting project. Macdonald-ross brings up an important point, that learners of the language might not be confident enough to write in it, because, as he correctly points out, it is more difficult to write in a language than to comprehend it. However, one would think that at least one person who doesn't speak English well (not contributors who are already fluent in English despite it not being their native tongue) would come to this wiki and start contributing without fear of embarrassment. A concern of mine is the response when someone like that arrives; when someone who seemed to fit that description came here (the "Pakistan editor" or Pakistan "vandal" -- does anyone remember hir???), s/he was accused of vandalism, the response was unfriendly, and even somewhat racist. I would indeed like to know more about the audience, and also, it would be good if this wiki found an audience among those whose mother tongue is not English (keep wanting to say "foreign" or "immigrant" - I guess that is the consequence of living in a xenophobic country). I understand, however, that this is probably very difficult to accomplish and I myself have no solution to the deficit in users who are beginning to learn English. In no way did I intend, with my original post, to minimize the (underrated) effort that it takes to create a wiki in "Simple English". This is just something to think about: how can more English learners be encouraged to participate in the Simple Wikipedia community? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I have set pages on this wiki for students in my classes at Japanese universities to read, but contributing their own writing is much more difficult. I'm proposing a course that will include writing on this wiki, but it takes time to get approvals etc. Most language teachers will tell you that you can't just throw students into this project. They need instruction and support all along the way. I do hope to get that going with at least a few learners. There are teachers asking students who are non-native writers of English to work on this wiki and on En, but ironically if those contributions are quite good, you might not notice them. Gotanda (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(<-) So far, I have come across one user where I had the impression they wanted to contribute, but that their communication skills in English was limited. The user ended up copying (parts of) articles of the English Wikipedia; two or three times, an attempt was made to communicate with the user, but failed. IIRC the user ended up being "banned" (yet comes back regularly). I am not a native speaker of English, but the basic problem I see is that the skill of English of an editor need to be at least at a basic level, to be able to communicate with others in the language. The editor I am talking about (The Pakistani edtor) has neverethless contributed a great deal to the Pakistan-, Bangladesh- and India-related articles here. He uses an IP that resolves to somewhere in the Manchester-area, so I cannot imagine that they cannot speak at least a little English. Anyway, since we are utterly unable to communicate with him, we didn't have too many options. That editor could be a great contributor to this wikipedia, if the communication problem were solved; there are two or three small things that he needs to change in his/her editing pattern, and I am sure no one would object to him contributing. As to the other audience, I cannot tell you much, as no studies have been done. A few times, we had official "Class projects" of people contributing content about their region. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Community Ban Discussion - Purplebackpack89


Redirects

How are these (Special:DoubleRedirects and Special:BrokenRedirects) updated? Is there a bot or a link to purge? Normandy (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a function of the Wiki software so it happens automatically. But I am not sure how often it updates. I am thinking it updates at the time of database dumps which are fairly far apart. At least a month I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Its updated today after only three days. It must be fairly random... Oh well, I'll just continue to check daily :P Normandy (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Template for conference proceedings?

Do we have a template for citing/referencing conference proceedings? --Eptalon (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How about {{Cite conference}}? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with Template

I have been working on Wikipedia:Citing sources and I found this template for citing reports, Template:Cite report. It does not have the nice, easy to use features of our other templates. Dos anyone know how to fix it, or use it?--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I just brought over the doc from enwiki. It might be out of date, but maybe it will help. You could also look at the pages that use it to see examples. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Capital cities need a brush-up

I've discovered that the capitals of the U.K. and France (and no doubt elsewhere) are seriously undercooked. We should try to cover major roads, major areas, bridges and main train stations, main sports arenas, etc. These should be the subjects of separate pages. It is really crazy not to have pages for Leicester Square, Mayfair, Regent Street etc. when we have pages on tiny places almost no-one has heard about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to necessarily disagree, but all things are relative. You name some of those places and as someone from my part of the world. I have never heard of those. I would actually put those on the same level as some of the places you are no doubt thinking are small that no one has heard of. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Why not have a "Capital Weekend" and get everyone to do something for their capital? The biography weekend was a great success.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
En Wikipedia used a bot to generate articles based on US Census data for each locality. Is there a similar data set for France or Germany that can automatically generate a short but factual article for each place? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Depending on the weekend, I'm in for Tokyo and Boston (if state capitals are also on the agenda). Both need a lot of work. Gotanda (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good idea. I think 'cities of worldwide significance', else we miss out such as N.Y., Chicago and Los Angeles! And Sydney, and no doubt many others. I had in mind that London has an average of about a million visitors at any one time, many of whom are young people from countries which are not English-speaking. I might be able to find someone to do Cairo. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

IW link

How do I link a word to the English Wiktionary? I have used [[wikt:defunct|defunct]] here but thats to the simple one, where the article doesn't exist. Whats the link to en.wikt? Should we link to en.wikt? Normandy (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To link to en.wiktionary, use [[:en:wikt:foo|foo]]. I don't think it should be used in articles, but I'm not sure. πr2 (talk • changes) 13:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a challenge, go to Simple Wiktionary and make the article. I have quite a few times. I think if you link to Simple Wiktionary and the page doesn't exist, then it automatically comes up on their most wanted pages list.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That is possible, just wikt has never interested me to go over and edit. I'll give it a go sometime maybe. Normandy (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks PiRSquared! Normandy (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Selena

Hey yall! I would like to know if there are anymore imperfections with the article? Is it ready to be nominated at WP:PGA? Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

requesting page move

i'm totally new to this, but it seems i'm not able to move pages from wikipedia, so apparently this was the place to post a request ?

my suggestion is that Beautiful Things is moved to Beautiful Things (Andain single), as this is how the future single pages will be addressed, which should also leave the page free to be replaced with Beautiful Things (Disambiguation)

on a second note, i see the links don't work here, so please note that this is for the ordinary english wikipedia...

I has unique username (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have something that needs to be done on the English Wikipedia, this is not the place to put it. This is a separate Wikipedia in its own right. Try the English village pump to get the page moved if you can not do it yourself. Thanks! Orashmatash is travelling (talk)
Uh, yeah, this is definitely not the right place. However, this is. Cheers! sonia 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of British English

Why is Category:All Wikipedia articles written in British English in Category:Article issues? Surely the category is a way of telling users what dialect they should write in, not that British English is wrong (i.e. an article issue). DJDunsie (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that someone couldn't think of a better name for "things that we want to track but that aren't actually problems". There are other things under Category:Article issues that aren't problems, as well as some that are. Those that are problems or that need action should probably be moved to Category:Cleanup needed. Technically, "issue" doesn't mean problem, but we tend to think of it as implying that something needs to be done. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly it, I think this came up a few weeks back. Issue does imply problem, but issue doesn't always mean problem. Auntof6 explains it best. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I understand. But shouldn't there also be Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English as well, for NPOV purposes? DJDunsie (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
We certainly could. We'd just need to create a template and category for it. We could also have other types of English if we want -- enwiki has about half a dozen of these templates. If you want that, feel free to create it, or let me know if you'd like me to do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I would do it, but I don't know how to create templates. About the other types of English, maybe we should leave it for now as this wiki is to underdeveloped for it to be a problem (and they are very similar anyway, apart from Canadian I think). Thanks, DJDunsie (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's done. Go ahead and put {{Use American English}} on whatever articles need it. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Page statistics

On Enwiki on Revision History, there is a link that takes you to the page statistics. Can we have that function here?--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Would a dev need to do that? --Orashmatash 17:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
We actually already have that function here :). Orashmatash 18:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Where? --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
When you click on the page history, look at the white toolbar underneath the "browse history" box. The far right link says 'View page statistics'. Click on it; was that what you were talking about, or is it a different link? Cheers, --Orashmatash 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have that link (I do on EN), is there something I need to install or add?--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It might depend on the skin you have installed. I see them on Vector. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm using Vector too, but no statistics. Maybe I have an addon that blocks them?--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Could be. Try disabling all your gadgets/add-ons and then see if you can see them. Remember you will need to clear your cache. And then if you can see them readd your gadgets one by one to see which one could be the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I use Monobook. I can see it fine. I didn't install or add anything, either. --Orashmatash 16:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Try the direct link: [1]. Goodvac (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I have it as well...

Other tools: Revision history statistics · Revision history search · Number of watchers · Page view statistics

Can someone upload a screenshot (upload to this local wiki) of what this looks like so I know I have the right "link". Best, Jon@talk:~$ 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Here.

Here you go. sonia 19:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It must be a gadget, as I can see it if I log out. Now to find out which one...--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, after deleting everything and putting it all back, but couldn't find the problem. Weird.Peterdownunder (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Complex' tag

We have been discussing several technical articles and the {{Complex}} tag. There are more than 1,000 articles currently marked as complex. Some people use the tag to warn the readers that the subject matter is not easy. Other people use it to warn the readers that the current article wording needs further simplification. It does generate a large "to do" list of articles that would need further simplification. Another editor seems to regard it as a flag for article deletion candidates.

What is the purpose of {{Complex}}? Should we create a second tag {{Advanced}} which would say, "This topic requires background knowledge and is best for advanced readers." For example, I think the article Trigonometric function is very useful and detailed. It is not as simple as Trigonometry, but the complexity comes mostly from the content rather than the prose. Similar problems can arise in chemistry articles were the big ideas are expressed as chemical equations and structural diagrams rather than prose text.

What is the purpose of the complex tag? Should we add a second tag to flag articles best suited for advanced readers? Racepacket (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well up until a couple months ago, articles that were complex and couldn't be made simple would tend to get deleted as they weren't considered part of the "basic articles" that this wiki tried to cover. People would be directed to en.wiki to read those articles. I think when we opened up the wiki to any articles recently things like this weren't really considered. The complex tag as such does both...it warns the reader the text is complex and it indicates that maybe there can be some simple tweaks made. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed and removed the flag on Trigonometric function. I found it had upper school-level maths which had been simplified from the enWP version. Any page simple enough to be used in a school context need not be labelled complex. Of course, the fact that a page is about a technical subject cannot be a licence for ignoring our remit, but the 'complex' label is meant to indicate a lower level of concern than a proposal for deletion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, one of the guiding ideas behind this wiki is that it should be simple in language, but also simple in process/design/structure/whatever you want to call it. Creating an Advanced tag adds organizational complexity. I don't view {{Complex}} as a marker for advanced content, but simply as a marker for complex language that is harder to read and should be simplified. Sometimes it may be very difficult to achieve, but advanced topics can and should be described in simple English. {{Complex}} cautions the reader that the article is not simplified and editors are directed to work on the article. Simple. {{Complex}} does not seem to be equivalent to a flag for deletion; there does not seem to be any consensus to support that. Gotanda (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly how I see it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well stated Gotanda. Exactly how I see it too.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The only other thing I might add is that there is a place for articles "best for advanced readers." It's Wikipedia En. Advanced subject area knowledge and advanced ability to read English do not always go together. I have to some students who can probably wipe the floor with any of us on mastery of science fundamentals and advanced topics, but they'd still struggle trying to read some of these articles. Gotanda (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Everyone agrees that there are two separate dimensions to the issue: complexity of prose and complexity of ideas. The difference between trigonometry and trigonometric function is a good example. The language of both is simplier than En Wikipedia. However, tables, diagrams and equations take trigonometric function to a much more sophisticated level without extra prose complexity. Racepacket (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of {{Advanced}} we should have a short message at the beginning, like a disambiguation, stating that the article requires advanced subject knowledge. DJDunsie (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)