Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Teahouse)

So close to 250k Articles[change source]

Lets reach this goal of 250,000 articles!!! We are so close! 84Swagahh (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

how many remaining?
-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, 250k is likely a symbolic figure, but should we not also look at the quality of articles? - Perhaps think differently? When was the last time you made a major change to an article, improving its quality, rewriting for simplicity, extending the concepts it covers? - Remember, 250k is just a number. If you show a Simple English Wikipedia article to your peers, your friends, or your children, what do you want them to see? -Try it yourself: Hit 'show any page' 10 times. A possible idea of quality would be: Of those 10 articles, at least 5 are in a state that you could show them, and say: 'Look, that's what Simple English Wikipedia is about'.... In other words: they are not full of red links, and don't have any templates that they need to be improved, or that you have the feeling such templates are needed. Numbers come on their own, quality doesn't. Eptalon (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True 💯👏🏻
-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, newly created pages should be complete or at least contain some content. It's puzzling why we have one or two-line stubs here. This issue should be addressed similarly to how it's maybe handled on English Wikipedia; articles that are too short should be deleted upon creation. We often retain articles from that are present on English Wikipedia here, even if they lack substantial content (not even a paragraph). – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. When we were approaching 100,000 articles, people rushed to create more and many of them got deleted for various reasons. I would have preferred not to have this brought to people's attention so that we get to the number in the normal course of events.
Besides that, reaching a certain number of articles is not actually a goal. It's not like views or subscribers on YouTube. Quality over quantity. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thing is, we should look at the quality of articles here for good metrics, rather than article count. Yes, having a lot of articles is good, but it wont matter when a majority are extremely short.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite a lot are pretty poor. Time would be better spent on improving what we have than making more. Rathfelder (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a metric worth aiming for. We have 27 Very Good Articles and 85 Good Articles. How about 30 VGA and 100 GA by the end of 2024? Reasonable? --Gotanda (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The work on these has almost stopped. It would certainly be good to get more of them. However, the last promotion tzo GA was at the beginning of December, the last promotion to VGA was in September last year. Even if I take GA as the "easier to reach", I'd expect 1-2 of them get promoted per month. But as of now, they get nominated, some work is done, and then people seem to lose interest.... Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, ideally, the process should be run by a group of editors... Eptalon (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are absolutely right. A group of editors is needed, which is I guess what I was asking about interest in. 1-2 GA per month could get us to 100 GA by the end of the year. VGA is a heavier lift, but I will continue to contribute to that effort. As have you. I think it is entirely possible. And, a worthy target. A couple of the formerly good articles look close enough to bring back, like Coffee and maybe Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. --Gotanda (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what is also needed are stricter deadlines so that we can say that between nomination & promotion/vote there are no more than 3 or 4 months? Eptalon (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely. As of now discussions never get closed. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is possible. I'm hoping to have at least one finished this year. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra eyes[change source]

On the article 321 BC, it doesn’t look quite right (nav bars embedded into nav bars and the commons cat buried in there). Funny part is I can’t see where it is coming from. Any extra eyes to help decipher this would be appreciated. The end goal is to get a proper layout of it as things are not where they are supposed to be and someone fubarred the process. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks okay to me now. Maybe someone fixed something? -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Do you see the commons on the top of the page? If not then something is jinky with mobile rendering as commons is at the top left and all the other stuff on the right and the article wording on the left. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: I see the Commons box at the bottom of the page, but I'm not using mobile view. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 I'm using the mobile view and i'm also seeing it at the bottom of page (although above the events section)
-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 So I guess I’m asking myself should commons category be embedded in a nav box as no other template embeds it and we can’t control where it should be so if the nav boxes get moved for some reason then so does the commons link and we can’t assure that any other inter-Wikipedia link to a sister project would be placed with it. Thoughts? Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: I don't think a Commons template should be imbedded in a nav box. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Thanks. I’ve never seen it on any wiki. I’ll go through the templates today or tomorrow and find it and remove it. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Found the template and removed it. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. I have a little update regarding my message from January:

Based on feedback we received, we have changed our plans – we won’t change the default feature for previewing references here, because your wiki is not a global sysop wiki. Instead, we would like to encourage you to do it yourself.

The benefit of having Reference Previews as the default feature for reference popups is that the user experience will be consistent across wikis and with the Page Previews feature. Also, that the software will be easier to maintain overall. I am taking the liberty of notifying some of your wiki’s admins in this message: @DannyS712, @Chenzw, @Djsasso

If you would like us to help you, you can let us know on this talk page. Any questions or comments, please let me know on the same talk page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Templates[change source]

I created Template:User Did You Know which is taken directly from En wiki, is that OK? (I'm asking since I don't know about Template creation [as well as it's rules if there are any])-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates on Simple Wikipedia are usually copied from English Wikipedia, so that's not an issue. However, some features like portals don't work here, so simply remove them from templates before copying. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 05:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, Thanks 👍🏻 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ayesha46 When we bring over templates we have to make a lot of changes to most of them. One as you stated is that we may not have it on our wiki (like portals and projects). We also have to simplify the English on it. There are other things that have to be done like being over the doc subpage and you also have to look at any embedded templates and see if they need to come over. Most of the templates we need are on here already and if a change is made to something at en wiki, an admin will usually update the template (some are admin only access and some are interface admin only). If you haven’t worked much in templates it’s best (like you did here) to ask about it first. Like I stated on your talk page earlier the template you brought over won’t work here due to the layout and the fact it’s a multi layered project that we don’t do on this wiki. I hope this helps you and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or someone else who is familiar with this wiki and templates. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 07:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍🏻 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quit good article request?[change source]

Hello, this is Bakhos, whould you quit my good article request of 1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake. I been working for so long, to get good article, i realized, it's not simpler. I don't wanna make this simpler, because it might be a hard work for me. If you quit my request, i will probably make a new request very very soon or not. Bakhos Let's talk! 09:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Rules[change source]

I'm Colonelsnow. I'm asking this to entire Wikipedia, but is it alright to create an article about rules of wikipedia? If yes, help me to perfect and make the page accurate in 'wikipedia law'. If no, reject what I am wanting to do. If something like this page already exists, please tell me. Thank you. Colonelsnow (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There exists a Page named 'Wikipedia:Rules' 👀 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ayesha46. Colonelsnow (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Won't rewrite something that exists already. Colonelsnow (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I saw your contributions page. 57 articles is a whole lot. Colonelsnow (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haha, there are people with more then that but Thanks for the Appreciation 😁
-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Skibidi toilet to Skibidi Toilet[change source]

I propose moving Skibidi toilet to Skibidi Toilet (with the first T in Toilet capitalized) as that is the proper name for the series and should be capitalized. It is also possible that Skibidi toilet was created because Skibidi Toilet is salted from creation. 2NumForIce (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done by me. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does it appear that all the RfDs are closed on the main page and you have to look at the categories to see what is opened? I find it confusing as some discussions are closed but show with the open ones. See Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024. I think the archives needs to be separated from the active and only active ones shown on the page (plus the page is blue like it’s an entire archive which is what it is). Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That all-blue thing sometimes happens when a request is closed incorrectly -- specifically, the "archive bottom" template isn't put at the bottom. I'm not seeing what you're talking about, so maybe someone fixed it.
The only misplaced closed ones I see now are some that you did a non-admin closure one. You probably didn't know, but while you were away we came to a consensus that we don't want non-admin closures here. The ones you closed were probably okay to close, but you didn't close them the way we would have wanted.
Also, closed requests should be moved to the section for recently closed ones. I know you just opined (vocabulary word of the day!) that closed request shouldn't even be on the page, but for now they are. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Auntof6 Ok. Thanks for that heads up as I did not know that. It just seems weird on some of the RfDs. I also noticed some do not link correctly. If you look at my recents you’ll see one I corrected on a users talk page as it was a red link and the one early about Bootstrap (library) didn’t link anywhere nor in email notifications (Ferien verified the same too). Originally it was forwarding us to the article about boots. We may need to look at the entire RfD setup and templates to make sure they are all working correctly. Great word of the day because I just used the word on Thursday in a discussion at work. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template error?[change source]

I think the template Template:Article too short has some error or maybe it doesn't?

See it's use on List of wars: before 1000 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ayesha46 There is nothing wrong with it. It was, however, placed on an article page and that template is meant to go one a talk page. I will also state I have never seen it used to be honest. It was fixed already so thank you for bringing it up. I did remove the header as a header for a table is not an intro so it has now become an intro. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks 👍🏻
-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ayesha46 After looking through the history of the page, it shows you were the one who inserted the template on the article page. When you put any templates on articles, very few are meant for articles. The ones that are on them are the major templates which get embedded somehow) through another template via cascading (think of a waterfall when the water is coming down, it brings sticks with it and adds more to it and now you have a bunch of sticks at the bottom). You can also always look at the actual template and it will tell you where it can be used and what it does, as well as any acceptable parameters. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 13:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had put the expand template while the other was added by the page creator but since it was showing something like [f{(1)}... It wasn't looking right, so i thought there's some error anyways Thanks for the correction🙌🏻
-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Ayesha46 - I posted on your talk page. As I said there, I will repeat here. We do not use that template here. We have stubs which we use. If we used that template on every article, it would be on 99.99% of them. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 13:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes I saw it after commenting here 😅 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Opinion Needed[change source]

Hello all,

Since we do not use the templates for expand pretty much of anything, I do not think we need them here. We have stubs for that which puts them in categories and says to help improve it, so it is redundant. What are the thoughts on deleting them? The following list are the ones I am thinking we do not need. Some do not have a lot of link backs to them, list does though. I am not talking about deleting any of the other ones, as they are needed (languages, etc.), just the ones listed below.

Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation from multiple counterparts[change source]

One of the entrants in the Feminism and Folklore contest submitted a translation that they say comes from more than one other Wiki. What is the correct way to attribute this? Is attribution needed if the drafter performed as much original work as a multiple-source translation would seem to require? [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Darkfrog24 IMO that would be a hard one. If they only translated from different language wikis how do we know if they didn’t use a translator program. You didn’t mention how many different languages, so that would be one concern of mine. The other is if the editor verified the actual sources (to me the best way would be the access date should be the day they edited that entry with the source). As far as attribution, my thought would be if they correctly sourced it and the language is true to the sources then it should be fine. I am not aware of any attribution to a specific editor due to the requirements of sourcing. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 05:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Click on the link provided, and you'll know what I know, DL. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Darkfrog24 Looking at it I would say yes. It should have been in the edit summary anyways. The editor can probably get away with parts translated from the (insert links to all articles they translated from). That would give attribution I believe. It would be the same as if we pulled over an article from en wiki. Just make sure there are no references put into the article for the other wikis. Thanks - Da LambTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No references put into the article for the other wikis"? I'm confused. Do you mean no non-English sources? We absolutely allow those. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Darkfrog24 Sorry I said that because of this en:WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh wow. Yes, of course people shouldn't cite Wikipedias as sources. It's been so long since I've seen anyone do that that it didn't occur to me that that could be what you meant. This contest entrant did not make that mistake. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm smacking my forehead but I JUST realized that three separate "translated" templates don't interfere with each other if they're on the same talk page at the same time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help request described on my Talk page[change source]

I placed the Template:Help me on my User talk page. Would appreciate a response there. Cheers, -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Discussion[change source]

Hello community. I have started a rename discussion on the article 16 January 2024 missile strikes against Houthi and as I linked this it shows that a new article has been created for everyday. The discussion is taking place at Talk:16 January 2024 missile strikes against Houthi. Please do not place discussions here for the sake of keeping discussions in one place. I’ll see you there! Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 16:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again community - The voting has now been opened. There are two different votes on the talk page under the topic Votes. The two votes are as follows:
  1. Renaming the article
  2. Renaming 10 other articles that have a template only on them and it was suggested they should be merged.
Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 08:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this simple?[change source]

From [[April 15]]:<blockquote>The Armenian Genocide began when the Ottoman Empire undertook the systematic destruction of Armenian intellectuals and entrepreneurs within the city of Constantinople and later the entire Armenian population of the Empire.</blockquote>Is this really suitable for the Simple English Wikipedia? I wonder if someone meant to write this on the normal English Wikipedia. (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

upgoer does not like this sentence, i agree. i would switch out the nouns in the darker colours (such as destruction, intellectuals, and entrepreneurs) and continue on with the segment from there -Astral~(he/him/his) 01:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English has about half it's vocabulary from Germanic languages, the other half from Romance ones. The only thing I see there is 'undertook the systematic destruction of...' Can be replaced with 'systematically destroyed'. But as with most articles, anyone I'd free to change to them.... Eptalon (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

subarticle questions[change source]

i am starting to edit here based on the things linked on my userboxes on en (i first land on hacker which has a major wp:npov issue holy)) and i was wondering how would the subpages for that work (theres like 5 main subpages for hacker on en and i am not sure if we have any of them (i haven't checked yet.) ) anyway, how exactly would i go about in determining if they're needed on simple. -Astral~(he/him/his) 01:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AstralAlley Welcome to Simple Wikipedia. I wanted to note that I looked at the article Hacker and I do not see any WP:NPOV issues with it. I would recommend you go into more detail on the talk page of Hacker of what you are determining is a non-neutral point of view. I noticed you said on your user page that you “hate how it's worded.” The article is very neutral and lays out who a hacker is as well as how they hack into various systems and what tools they use. Once you post more details on the talk page of the article, I’ll be happy to assist you in pointing you in the right direction and giving you some pointers and point you to our various guidelines. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
gotcha, ill post some more details in the talk page as of rn :3 -Astral~(he/him/his) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an ongoing proposal to merge Attack on the Genco Picardy into Red Sea crisis. The discussion is taking place here. Please comment in the merge discussion and not here, to keep a complete and easy place to locate the discussion conversation. Thank you! WeatherWriter (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this page good?[change source]

Student loan - (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ip user. I have made some edits to it. We don’t link back to the article within the article. I also removed the bolding and simplified it a little more as well as rephrasing a sentence. Otherwise great job! Thanks for editing. If you wish, you can always create an account which has many benefits. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English Grammar Expert ?[change source]

Hopefully, I can have an expert of English Grammar here in free.

Jagsirbhinder (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea is to create articles in simple English on subjects that are notable, interesting etc. Don't worry about your English, other editors will fix it if it needs fixing. Many people using this Wikipedia and editing here have a mother tongue that isn't English. Why should we punish people for creating interesting pages? Note that with very few exceptions anyone can edit any page here. So be bold, and create a new page if you think it is missing. Eptalon (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge proposal notification[change source]

I have proposed that we merge Operation Poseidon Archer into the Red Sea conflict. Please join the discussion at Talk:Operation Poseidon Archer#Merge proposal Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 08:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on addition to MOS - Captions[change source]

I have started a discussion on the talk page of WP:MOS. Please participate by joining the discussion here. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some eyes[change source]

As I’m not an expert and this particular article, K2, is not within my wheelhouse. I’ve noticed a lot of ip editing to it lately and they do a lot of small changes so I can’t really pin point where things are being introduced. What I have been able to tell is there is some WP:NPOV issues and from looking at the en wiki article this mountain seems to be located in 3 different countries, however, in our version it says it’s only in Pakistan. I’ve also seen edits where it says INDIA Pakistan (I’m pretty sure I know my countries and that is not one of them). I think some extra eyes would be beneficial.

Perhaps we could also get semi-protection on this for a bit to avoid the small changes that IPs keep making leaning it to NPOV? Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 18:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, it looks it is on the border between China, and Pakistan.... Eptalon (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon En wiki has it documented (with a few references) as “It lies in the Karakoram range, partially in the Gilgit-Baltistanregion of Pakistan-administered Kashmir and partially in the China-administered Trans-Karakoram Tract in the Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County of Xinjiang.” Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was like most of the mountains in central Europe, it likely forms the border. Meaning one side is in one country, the other side in the other. Eptalon (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K2 is on the border of Pakistan and China, partially within both countries. It used to be entirely within Pakistan I believe until 1963. The mention of India in the article is probably POV pushing on the Kashmir issue. 19:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC) – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 19:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pak-administered K and China-administered K... Eptalon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon @PotsdamLamb @Cyber.Eyes.2005 it's in Pak and China administered Kashmir but the China administered Kashmir is what India claims to be it's land (Aksai Chin) that's why @PotsdamLamb must have seen India somewhere I guess.... -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likely so. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 19:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the diff Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made it simple, called it Pakistan and China. No need to complicate things. Eptalon (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eptalon Can’t get much simpler. I give it less than 24 hours before it’s hit again. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 19:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tool Broken[change source]

The page size tool keeps giving me "undefined B" for readable prose size every time I use it, even though it still works on enwiki. It has been a problem for several days now. Please fix this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@QuicoleJR You best place to post this is on the mediawiki project and explain in detail on what is happening. If this is a script, you will need to contact the creator of the script and do the same explanation. The gadgets and scripts are not something admins can do here unless it’s a script one of them made. You can also see if anyone else has this problem to help isolate it to the tool or to your computer. Hope this helps! Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Seems like it is a third-party tool. What do I do now? Should I try to get someone to port the enwiki version? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJRWhat’s the link to the tool? Is it in your js file? Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 14:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find a link. What I thought was the link was switched out at some point, and I can't find the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJR Stand by Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QuicoleJR check your email and we can go from there. Thanks - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 15:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]