Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Village Pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Edit war or change war?[change source]

Since we don't generally use the word "edit" here, should Wikipedia:Edit war be moved to Wikipedia:Change war? I've at least created a redirect for now. Also, should the wording on Template:Uw-3rr be changed also? It's possible there could be an argument that the Edit war article adequately explains the word edit. What do people think. IWI (chat) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also editing policy, editing guidelines, and tons of interface text that still says "edit" instead of change. Since change is the preferred word here, I would recommend changing all instances to that. Naleksuh (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not prefer change to edit but using the same word for the same thing would be Simple. War is a common word but I am not sure that it helps to use it when some people are acting in good faith. The simple message could be "Someone does not agree with the change you made. Please do not try to make the change again today. If you think your change needs to be made at once, you may try the change for a second time, but say why it cannot wait in the Change summary. Please use the word Urgent to help everyone see that you have thought about leaving your change for another day. If the change is not urgent,...[agree]... " From this, we might get "Change not yet agreed" instead of "Edit War". I might prefer "Changed back. A second change must be urgent". Just a thought.--GrounderUK (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
They don't teach the word edit in English schools. They do teach the word change. IWI (chat) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
That may be so. On the other hand, Edit is the English word that normally appears in software that allows the person using it to make a change, so it is a word that is familiar to younger people and to many others with less advanced English. As I say, I don't have a preference for which word we use but I would prefer us to be consistent in using one word or the other. Well, I didn't quite say that, so I'll try again: use either change or edit but not both.
And then we have revert and the three-revert rule, when the action is labelled undo! There is no excuse at all for revert if our English is Simple (it's less than half as common as edit). Of course, if you undo an undo, it's a re-do. But they both change back... "Take care, because we do not let you change back the same page more than three times on the same day. We may still stop you making any more changes if ..." --GrounderUK (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
But you can revert without clicking undo. Although undo is a synonym of sorts. As for that, change should be use as we have a "change" button and a "change" summary. IWI (chat) 20:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's hard, isn't it? The point is that we are not consistent. We use "undo" and "change" as action words, then we say we have a "three-revert rule" which applies to a "user" and says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions..." And yet we simply want to say "Don't keep changing things back" or (if you prefer) "Don't keep undoing edits"
Then, of course, we call our changes "contributions" and the things we've changed are "revisions" and the changes between revisions are called a "difference". But if you look at a "Revision history" they stop being called revisions and become "versions", unless you actually want to compare them, when you "Compare selected revisions", which shows you a "difference". (And if, instead, you think you might like to "Edit tags of selected revisions", you'll see that "Edit tags" doesn't let you edit tags, it lets you "Add or remove tags". And if you think you want to "Manage tags", that'll just get you a list of "tags that the software may mark an edit with"...)
So you stick to editing... I mean changing. You ignore the fact that hovering over "Change" helpfully translates it as "Edit this page" and choose "Change source". You remember you were prompted to "use the preview button before saving", but there isn't a preview button and nor is there a save option. Not too hard to guess that the "Show preview" button might mean "preview"... but if you choose "Show changes", you get to see "Newest version" beside "Your text" (which is actually the "difference" against the latest "revision"). Either way, the text entered under "Change summary" is labelled "Preview of edit summary". Duly advised of the consequences of clicking "Publish changes", you guess that must mean "save"... But "If you do not want your writing to be changed and shared then do not submit it here." "Submit"? You mean "Publish"? You mean "save"? You mean "Do not click the button"! ...Simple? It ain't!--GrounderUK (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You've just fried my brain. I have no idea where to start haha... What? IWI (chat) 02:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That's not what I wanted to do. Let's go back to the start.
  1. You point out that we use "change" not "edit", so should we change "Edit war" to "Change War"? Fair point. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent.
  2. Naleksuh agrees but points out that "edit" is used in lots of other places so we should change them all. Fair point. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent.
  3. I think, "Fair point. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent." but if there are going to be all these changes, let's take a look at the word "war" too. I don't think it's helpful. So I offer some thoughts about what sort of language we might use (not using the word "edit" or "war").
  4. You say that they don't teach the word edit in English schools. Maybe not. Perhaps they should. Whatever word we use, we should be consistent.
  5. So what about "revert" and "undo"? Revert is not Simple English. Maybe we should think about "undo" instead. We already use that word. But I go back to "change back" and suggest revised wording that avoids using the words "revert" or "undo".
  6. You say, "you can revert without clicking undo". Well, yes. There is more than one way to change something back. WP:3RR already talks about "a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions"... Because that's Simple English... Unlike "Don't keep changing things back".
  7. And you say we have a "change" button and a "change" summary. Well, nothing wrong with that. Except that the "change" button has a hint that says it edits. And the "change" summary has a preview that calls it an "edit summary". Nothing like being consistent, is there?
Well, let's leave the other inconsistencies for another time. "Edit war", we can change. But let's think about that word "war". Let's think about it quite hard.
--GrounderUK (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
fwiw, they changed the edit button to publish long ago, so the edit war jargon is obsolete. you can tell a veteran from a newbie because they say edit. Slowking4 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
So it seems that consensus is to move to Change War. But what about other uses of edit that I mention above, such as similar pages like editing policy, contents of many other pages, and interface text. Is there consensus for this to be changed as well? Naleksuh (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Two ways to look at this: 1) Match other Wikipedias and 2) Do our own thing.
1) "Edit War" has an advantage: It is the same term used on the English Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia (Guerra), French Wikipedia, Italian Wikipedia and probably lots of others. If someone is reading an article in their own language and then coming to Simple English to learn or make a Simple English version of the article they wrote in Spanish, it would help a lot if we used the same term. I write articles in Simple English and in Spanish and it helps me.
2) If there were no English Wikipedia and you were coming up with a name for this completely from scratch, what would you pick? "Change War" works, but it suggests coins. And do we need the word "war"? There's "Change-back War," "Change fight," "Change-text fight," "Dueling changes," "Erasing Fight." Can anyone come up with a really good word that gets right to the point and is better than "Edit war" by enough that it outweighs the advantage of matching other Wikipedias? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you (collectively) have run too fast. You dismiss 'revert' as being not simple, but it is accurate. Long ago we agreed not to be bound just by the Ogden list when we had a clearer alternative. No-one thinks Ogden did more than scratch the surface. We must be specific if we are going to use the words to describe an administrative decision. "Three reverts" is a much more specific description than three edits, changes etc. Also, the whole discussion took less than a fortnight. And, there is a lack of comments from some of our most experienced editors. We should change what we have been doing for years after such a discussion? No, the poll is far too likely to give us something we will regret. Stop being so pushy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Just to be clear, though... I brought up "revert" because it is a less common word than "edit" and, it turns out, "edit wars" are actually about "reversions", not "changes". To relate most directly to the (current) user experience, we have first a "change" and then an "undo". Or, as IWI points out, there is some other action that has the effect of an "undo". One alternative is going back to an earlier "revision"; another is a new "change" that has the effect of moving in the opposite direction to the original change (a "counterchange", if we are not staying Simple). Personally, I don't find "revert" to be a more accurate term than "undo", here, but I can see how it might be helpful to use a term that is not directly linked to a particular form of the misbehaviour. (This is why I shifted to "change back"... but "undoing war" makes me smile!)--GrounderUK (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think "edit" has a very specific meaning; yes "change" covers some of the meaning, but only some of it: Is a "change war" a contest who can change clothes fastest? - And as pointed out elsewhere, it is not just this occurrence, but many others. I feel I am here to make this Wikipedia better. I don't necessarily do this by changing a good part of the interface texts. And no, I am not a native English speaker. (And for those who don't know yet, I am probably the person who has been changing this wikipedia for the longest time, and who is still active). --Eptalon (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking about this for awhile but couldn't think how to word my thoughts but Macdonald-ross has pretty much summed up my thoughts perfectly. There is a tendency to try and change a word without considering the entire phrase or idea. Changing a single word to make it simpler sometimes makes the phrase less simple. -Djsasso (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Although I added support to this proposal, below, I can see both sides of the argument. I certainly agree with some of the points made by Macdonald-ross and Eptalon above. Accuracy matters. What I would add is that consistency also matters, and if we are calling edits changes in some places, and edits edits in other places, that could be confusing for the target audience. Why not call a revert a change-back; three change-backs? I do see why someone would question the use of it as it comes from a phrasal verb, to change back, but in essence to revert something is to change it back to what it was. I also think that context makes it obvious what change would mean in the context of a change war, given that we already talk of changes here, not edits. The page explains what an edit war or change war is. The title of the page merely acts as an expression we would use to allude to the definition. In the scheme of things, I do not think it will have a huge impact either way; the wiki has been fine with the page as it is (edit war), and it would be fine if we changed it to change war. I do think that for consistency's sake, changing it would be a good idea. --Yottie =talk= 19:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't want anyone to think I have attempted to game the system here by starting a poll. The poll is just to get an idea of what people think, it is not setting stone. Consensus should be drawn from this whole discussion. If there is strong consensus for something different than my proposal, it should be stopped. Either way, "edit war" doesn't seem appropriate, considering we don't use the word "edit" anywhere else. I see Eptalon's comment about the fact that "Change war" could possibly have other meanings. Is there a better phrase for this that we can use? The way I see it, "change war" is still better than "edit war". I also see Macdonald-ross' point that we may have moved to fast with the proposals and accuracy should not be compromised for simplicity. This is also true. As Eptalon said, other meanings may be drawn from the phrase, but we must remember that the article in question explains the phrase well. IWI (chat) 18:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Poll[change source]

I will start a simple support/oppose poll below, as nobody has came up with another name. . Should Wikipedia:Edit war be moved to Wikipedia:Change war?

  • Support as proposer. IWI (chat) 19:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Makes sense to me. --Yottie =talk= 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seeing this is simple english wiki, it would make sense --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Abstain There is no consensus here. There isn't even consensus about having a poll! I'm not opposing the change itself. But if it comes down to: shall we just do this one thing, and exactly this, right now? My answer is no.GrounderUK (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what your point is. You're opposing on the grounds of there being no consensus and not wanting to do "exactly this" when everyone else who commented is in support. Why do you not want to rename the page? Vermont (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Reading the comments above, there are serious objections. My conclusion is that it was incorrectly named "edit war" in the first place and so it should not simply be changed to the equally incorrect (but simpler) "change war".--GrounderUK (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If anyone agrees with this, they would expect to vote oppose.IWI (chat) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean.
[For the record, I am changing my oppose to abstain. I dislike both options presented in the poll. I don't think we should be having this poll at all. But, honestly, I don't think it matters to me what the outcome is.]--GrounderUK (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Well the comments above would likely serve as an oppose from them. There is a reason, we typically don't jump to "Polls", we generally suggest discussion as above as its better to find consensus than a binary poll. -Djsasso (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The point was to just get an idea of the opinions of users. None of this is setting stone - it's just a poll. Consensus is not a vote. IWI (chat) 20:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I can accept 'change war', though I could accept staying as we are. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC).
  •  Comment I think we should pick one of the many alternatives offered in the thread above. I think "Undo war" makes the most sense for our purposes because people literally hit the undo button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You can revert without clicking the undo button, as stated. Not necessarily the best solution. IWI (chat) 19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, certainly people can. But I think "undo war" is easy to understand because one way to have such a war is to use the undo button. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't know about our target audience (mostly young people and non-native speakers, I presume), but as a native speaker of English, I would not know what "change wars" means. Kdammers (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
But if you didn't know what the word "edit" meant, would you know what "edit war" means? "Change" is a word used throughout this wiki, including in the interface itself. IWI (chat) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I could look up the word "edit" and get something of an accurate idea. Looking up "change" would give me too many options. As others have argued, "war" might not be a good choice either.
  • Support. It makes no sense to use "edit" if we use "change" everywhere else. Majavah (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Begrudgingly Support - It sounds silly but "change" seems to be the commonly used word here (as opposed to "edit") so it does make sense.... –Davey2010Talk 22:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if a poll discussing this matter was necessary since I have never seen a user get confused by this. For me both 'edit' and 'change' are simple, so any can be used. IMO 'Change war' will create difficulty in finding the page for people who jump from other wikis but with redirect the problem can be solved I guess.-BRP ever 23:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose would confuse editors who are used to seeing simple english here --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Other names[change source]

I agree with Macdonald-ross that this moved a little quickly. I would like to list all the other names people came up with in the thread here, and anyone with other ideas should add to it. My own view is that all of these are better than "change war" (though I think "Change war" is good enough to work without problems). Now that they have all had time to cook in my brain, I find I have realized which one I like most and why. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Change war (subject of main proposal)
  • Change-back war/Changeback war
  • Change-text fight
  • Dueling changes
  • Erasing fight
  • Revert war
  • Undo war
    • Out of these, revert war is my preference. Although I still think change war is the best IMO. IWI (chat) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia Social[change source]

Greetings friends. I'm trying to start a social meeting for our community and others as well, of course. The intent is to have fun, socialize, play some games, and perhaps brag about your favorite drink or snack. I will be hosting JackBox Games for entertainment and would love getting to know everyone. The first SEWP Social will be held on the Discord server General 1 voice channel and will be scheduled for Friday, July 17th at 2300 UTC (6pm CDT, 7pm EDT). No RSVP is necessary, but if you'd like to announce your intent to attend, you're welcome to respond here. I'm excited and looking forward to the first social! See y'all there. Operator873talkconnect 03:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - Stewards, functionaries, and members of other communities are cordially invited as well. :) Operator873talkconnect 03:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It's 12am BST for me. Hopefully I am not working and can attend. Sounds fun. IWI (chat) 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice initiative! I think the community would benefit from this kind of event. Sadly it's a bit too late for me, midnight BST, as I'm working the following day. Have fun everyone! --Yottie =talk= 09:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


(bump to bottom) Hello again friends, just a quick reminder that this coming Friday, we'll be having a meet up on the Discord server at 2300 UTC. I am looking forward to seeing everyone there! Operator873talkconnect 22:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Tried to join but I can't seem to log in. Have fun, you guys! Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For next time: Lets try using some software where the audio works reaosnably; also think about the fact that some editors are from Europe. 1 am CE(S)T is not a good time for everyone.--Eptalon (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
As a fellow European, I agree. IWI (chat) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Dang, I missed out, Hopefully next time --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Change the tagline that appears below the title on every page[change source]

The motivation for this proposal is that there is not currently enough visual distinction between pages here and pages on the non-simple English Wikipedia, which can lead to confusion. (A few times in the past, when Google has taken me to a page here rather than one at en-WP, it has taken me a minute to realize where I am.) The only way for someone to tell currently (assuming desktop; I have no clue what's happening on mobile) is to notice the slightly different logo in the upper left, or (even less likely for non-editing readers) to notice the different sidebar/UI elements like "change" instead of "edit".

The best way to address this, I think, would be to change the tagline that appears under the title of every page. It's currently From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the same as en-WP. I think the best alternative would be From the Simple English Wikipedia. This keeps the language short, and replaces "the free encyclopedia" (something people can be expected to know at this point; it's no longer 2005) with an indication that you are here rather than at en-WP and a link in case you don't know what the Simple English Wikipedia is (a more likely scenario) and want to learn. How does this sound? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I like it. By now "Wikipedia" is a bit famous. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree. However, I have never ever Googled something that actually showed me the Simple English Wikipedia page before the standard English Wikipedia page. The only way I can have that happen is if I specifically type the Simple English Wikipedia in my search query. Google even has a special cutout for what is basically the lead to a Wikipedia article with the link to that article. I can't say I can sympathize with this problem because I've never personally seen it happen. ~Junedude433talk 02:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I've seen it a few times myself. It's rare, but sometimes Google seems to rank Simple higher than Enwiki. Maybe when we have a more complete article than Enwiki? (Also rare, but it does happen). Desertborn (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I will say that I have addressed this problem for myself by using a different skin on the two projects. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Everyday readers will just use the standard skin, and both enwiki and simplewiki appear idenctical on mobile. This could be helpful in preventing confusion, and even somewhat reducing cases of new users changing simple words to complex words, not realising they are in fact on the SEWP. IWI (chat) 17:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Not really sure how you wouldn't notice as right next to the article title in Google it says "Simple English Wikipedia". -Djsasso (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
While on the page however, it is not clear. I feel IPs would be at least somewhat less likely to hit edit and start making the article complex on their mobile devices if it was clearer. IWI (chat) 21:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I was testing this on my own mobile device, and it doesn't seem like MediaWiki:Tagline is visible on the mobile interface at all. I think differentiating the tagline will be useful, nevertheless. Chenzw  Talk  16:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
You're right, it's not. I don't use the mobile view but I've just tested it myself. Still could be useful either way. IWI (chat) 16:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Personally I've never paid any attention to the tagline here or at EN - Both sites are easy to differentiate from however not everyone may find it easy to know which one's which, If it helps our readers then sure. Support. –Davey2010Talk 21:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with the proposal and my opinions are in line with Davey's above so support.-BRP ever 23:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
or you could change the default skin to timeless, which also works better on mobile, no one could mistake that for english. Slowking4 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: But this is no good for the everyday reader. IWI (chat) 19:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
can you not change the default for not logged in readers? because readability is better for small screens, with the left menu out of the way. Slowking4 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a whole other discussion. Not something I would support personally. IWI (chat) 19:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
well, the problem statement is: "not enough visual distinction". is the tagline visual? or is it branding, most new users will not notice? i agree, a skin change, would be a more contentious discussion. i would suggest that timeless is an improvement, that would provide a clear visual distinction. Slowking4 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-31[change source]

13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Big World Heritage Weekend 2020[change source]

Hello everyone. Following the success of the recent revival of the Big Weekend, me and Yottie have decided to coordinate another Big Weekend next month. This one will be a Big World Heritage Weekend, which will run from Friday 14 August 2020 - 11AM UTC until Tuesday 18 August 2020 - 11PM UTC. The objective of this project is to update the Lists of World Heritage Sites articles as well as create articles for any missing World Heritage Sites. There was a similar Big Weekend in 2012 that also focused on national parks. This was very successful, and we hope this one will be too. Feel free to join the conversation over on Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend, and sign up to the Big World Heritage Site Weekend 2020! Regards, IWI (chat) 18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a stub category[change source]

I am not sure that this is the right place to post this, but I'm doing so anyway. I'm also not sure if I'm being simple enough, so please forgive me if I'm too complex.

The Simple English Wikipedia has many stubs. Too many stubs, in fact. Imagine if we could track them all. In fact, enwiki already does this (not that I'm trying to imitate it or something).

I propose a stub category in which the generic stub tag ({{stub}}) falls into only the stub category (which will most likely be named Category:All stubs). I then propose that each specific stub tag (that is, those tags that are not {{stub}}). For example, {{US-stub}} will be sorted into Category:US stubs. I ask that an administrator handle this request, as the {{stub}} template is fully protected.


With that, I propose that we create categories to track stubs, as described in detail above.


Respectfully, ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 18:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: Hello! Don't worry, only the articles are in Simple English. Discussions can be held in regular conversations. We already have Category:Stubs as well as Category:Stub categories. Is this what you're describing? Operator873talkconnect 18:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
As Operator mentions we do basically track them in the locations he mentions, but I should also note that stub categories here somewhat in a half-deprecated state. We try to be much more simple than en.wiki and only have the most generic stub categories possible and only create new ones when we absolutely have to and have a number of editors working on expanding stubs in that given category. See Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project for an explanation. -Djsasso (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Djsasso and Operator873 OK, but when I go to the articles in said categories, I do not see a "stub" category that appears. I use HotCat, for reference. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Stub categories should not be added with HotCat. They should be added only by putting one of the (approved) stub templates in an article. The stub categories are hidden categories, so you might need to change your preferences to be able to see them on articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor Review[change source]

  • I'd like to do an editor review here, I want to run for adminship in a few months from now, I know that these are holding me back
Low edit count
Not enough participation in other areas of SimpleWiki that I may not know even exists.

Why do I want to run for admin?

  • Not enough admins, at times when one is needed when I am online, or when one is needed, there is no active admins
  • I notice logs that some admins may have forgot to revdel
  • Help block and stop vandals
  • I do not intend to participate in irc channels, as it confuses me there
  • Help with backlogs
  • So I can Delete obvious pages that violate Wikipedia policy without adding to any qd backlogs
I know that admins are not special, and they only get a few more buttons, that's all

Can I have some feedback on me as an editor, thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Me and a few other editors were discussing possible candidates for admin a few days ago. I mentioned your name, but the main concern is that you take long periods of inactivity. Now, I wouldn't say that's guaranteed to hold you back. @Only: sometimes goes up to half a year without editing, but we still value their contributions. The main issue with this is that you can only get so many admins before all rfas fail, and you would want to have as many admins as possible be active. I would prefer as many admins as possible use IRC , due to the usage of the stalkword and it being more common than VIP here. For what it is worth though, I would not oppose due to your edit count.
Here is one  Question: for you: Can you give some examples of diffs that you say admins forgot to revdel, so we can evaluate if there is a real problem or perhaps it was not revdelled intentionally.
Hope this helps you with editor feedback :) Naleksuh (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Naleksuh I don't have the diff with me because it has already been revdeled, but I mentioned to Operator873 on his talk page, that there was a revision that still needed to be revdeled, and it did get revdeled, see here, the reason for inactivity is the message on the top of my talk page, but I am starting to feel better now, so I'll start being active again. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Considering that the reason for the activity is entirely legitimate, I don't think that should be a consideration anyone should take. I think you would make a good administrator. You have a good understanding of policy and clearly "have a clue". I can't think of any instance where I've seen a concern of any kind with your edits. You even advised me on a couple of things in the past. Generally I would only oppose someone who I thought wouldn't use the tools correctly (intentionally or not), but you always think before you act with things like rollback. For these reasons, I would likely support promotion. IWI (chat) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't conducted a thorough review yet, but would like to state for now that revision/log deletion is used in a very selective fashion. More often than not, lack of revdel/logdel is due to a conscious decision to not perform the deletion. If you can give specific examples, I am quite sure myself (or other administrators) will be able to take a look at them for you. The point about IRC: the matter of on-wiki and off-wiki communication channels has been a recurring theme in ST these few months; I should say again that no one should be pressured to hop on IRC just because many other editors are already there, and lack of participation in off-wiki communication channels should not be considered against RfA candidates. Off-wiki channels are not a replacement for established on-wiki processes. Chenzw  Talk  03:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-32[change source]

15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

PGA and PVGA process[change source]

Hello everyone, given the situation at WP:Proposed (Very) Good Articles (whereby articles seem to sit in the queue for months on end), I was wondering whether we could come up with a way to revitalise this part of the project. It is an opportunity to display some of our best work, and it seems a shame not to endeavour to write high quality, simple articles.

I am wondering whether the current process is too complex, or not clear enough. Of course, as Eptalon often points out, the lack of editors on the project also makes this a challenge.

It seems that often the articles nominated for GA are not in great shape in the first place (e.g. information missing, not simple enough, etc.). I think we might be able to reinvigorate the process by making it simpler.

My suggestion would be to rewrite the page Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles (and corresponding page for VGAs). One suggestion might include changing the requirements. There are too many bullet points as it stands. Let's keep it simple. For example:

  1. The article must be written in Simple English.
  2. The article must talk about most of the important information on the subject.
  3. The article must be encyclopaedic. It must be in the right category, have few or no red links, have good references and have pictures is possible.

Do we really need to say any more than that? Currently the first point goes without saying: all articles should be about a subject that belongs on Wikipedia. The second point would be covered by the second point above. The third point is redundant - nobody writes perfect articles, but the article will have been reviewed by other editors before reaching GA status. Point four is covered by the third point above. Point five also goes without saying. Points six, seven, eight and nine are covered by point 3 above.

I understand why we do not have (got rid of, many years back?) WP:Peer review, as it is yet another thing to maintain. Maybe there is an argument to create this page (instead of the current redirect to WP:PGA), to help make the actual PGA page clearer; articles on WP:PGA should almost be ready to be promoted. At the moment, the criteria suggest an article should be posted at Peer Review first, before being posted at PGA - but of course, as I said Peer review is PGA here, and so it ends up cluttering that page. The How to make an article good section then suggests voting, and obtaining 70%+ support from a minimum of 5 voters... but the PGA page says not to support or oppose. We need to make things clear.

I suggest having a page called Wikipedia:Article review, where editors can post pages they intend to take to PGA or PVGA. There, they can explain whether the article is going to be put up for PGA or PVGA, and other editors can leave comments to help improve the article before the nominators take the page to PGA/PVGA. This way, when the article gets to PGA, it has a better chance of passing quickly. If there are objections, an Administrator can decide to send the page back to Article review.

The other point I wanted to bring up was who PGA sits with. I do not believe it currently sits with Administrators, however it is likely that admins will be the people overseeing the process, as mediating is part of their role anyway. I would be keen for this to be clearer in the guidelines, so that Administrators should be in charge of Promoting articles, closing and archiving the discussions (much like RfD). This would not add much to their workload, as there are not an exceedingly high number of PGAs, but I feel it would help reinvigorate the PGA process and move things along quicker.

Also, while there is a rationale to voting being evil, I think that it would also help simplify the process once articles are moved from Article review to PGA. We vote (whether we call it that or not) at T:DYK, WP:RFA, so why not here? It makes it clear, and any objections can be brought up during this vote. Whether we call it a vote, or not, is optional, but at the end of the day saying I support the article being a GA because it meets the requirements or I do not support the article being a GA because it doesn't meet the requirements is a vote of sorts. Let's call it what it is. As ever, with these things, if the closing Administrator feels the article does not meet the requirements, they can send it back to Article review.

I have made an example PGA page in my userspace. I am open to suggestions, of course, but I feel we need to do something to get the process to move quicker (whether to promote or not).--Yottie =talk= 19:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this would make the process move quicker, but I have no objections to what you propose. The only suggestion I can think of right now is that the third point could say "It must be in the right category(ies)" because most articles should be in more than one category. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As someone who has had PGA and PVGAs sit in the queue for months without anyone to look at it, I appreciate this post. However, I would agree with Auntof6 that much of what you wrote probably wouldn't make the process much faster. The main problem seems to be attention. Some articles are very clearly either decent enough to be worth considering, or so bad that they clearly should have never been nominated. Maybe a reason why some people wouldn't check is because there's some kind of expectation of leaving a very in-depth review (even though that's not required). One possible solution is just to better announce something on the talk page. Admins have done that in the past when someone has been nominated for some kind of rights or position, an admin often announces it, and suddenly there are at least a dozen people who chime in within the day. Having even a third of that attention for PGA and PVGA would basically solve the problem. I would imagine the only problem with this is that an admin saying "hey guys, this article looks good. Everyone should look at it!" would be playing favorites or something. I think more could be done to draw attention to these, and the effects would be incredible, not just to show our best work, but to help others. Personally, when I started out editing the Lawrence, Kansas article, I tried to use other high-quality city articles as a decent template. Sadly, there really weren't any, so I had to use the standard English version as a guide and figure out a lot as I went along. Having at least one GA or VGA for every major category of article (location, object, event, person, concept, etc.) would go a long way to help new people and maybe guide those who are looking to really make something. ~Junedude433talk 00:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification about a proposed global ban of User:Eric abiog[change source]

  • Voted, thanks for bringing it up. — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Technical Wishes: FileExporter and FileImporter become default features on all Wikis[change source]

Max Klemm (WMDE) 09:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Red links?[change source]

Can I get some? LovelyCardigan (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi LovelyCardigan, welcome to Simple Wikipedia. Can you please clarify what exactly are you looking for? — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
requested articles. LovelyCardigan (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You may check Wikipedia:Requested pages. — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
@Infogapp1, LovelyCardigan: That page lists articles that people have requested, but which are not necessarily redlinked anywhere. Special:WantedPages lists redlinked pages. Both are good places to get ideas for pages to create. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup?[change source]

Should the templates listed in Category:People navigational boxes be renamed to a certain format? Such as "Position" of "Place". It'll be easier for editors to add it into articles. --Minorax (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)