Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Central Talk)

Non-admin closuresEdit

Per the discussion here, I have decided to start a discussion about this. SithJarJar666 closed a deletion discussion. Since we have no official policy on this, he was perfectly within his rights to do this per WP:FOLLOW (following en:WP:NAC). However, Djsasso has pointed out that this has been discussed before and consensus was that non-admins do not close discussions here, as admins can deal with all closures. I would definitely like to see if someone can find any discussions about this in the archives, so we can see what consensus was. I propose we make this a firm policy, as we cannot expect new users to understand unwritten rules. We would likely add this policy to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, which is currently a proposed policy. I think it worth discussing whether this is still the consensus also. Personally, I see no issue in users who are not sysops closing clear keep cases. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  Strong support Strong support for non-admin closures. While some use cases of the non-admin closure are questionable, I don't think that just abolishing them entirely is a good idea at all (a good use case of the non-admin closure being cases like Commodore Nutt). The purpose of admins closing RfDs is because they are the ones with the ability to delete the page (and ideally have all the options available to them). But in very obvious situations like WP:SNOW-esque, I don't see why there shouldn't be a non-admin closure. Same reasons why no groups are necessary to close merge requests and a crat flag is required to close adminship requests.
While I strongly support the first three lines of that page, I'm not so sure about the last line: Any editor in good standing is allowed to close check-usership and oversighter requests, as only stewards are able to promote users to those positions. They do not have to be administrators or bureaucrats. . To me, it seems like the goal here is to make RFCU and RFOS a lot like RFB by having crats close them. However, I also don't want to add unnecessary groups to closing something, as this somewhat furthurs the idea that having groups is like executive power.
So, I go with   Neutral on who can close RFCU/RFOS, and   Strong support for all others. Naleksuh (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The purpose was not whether to make that old proposed policy page a policy, but more if we can come to a consensus for a new page reflecting the consensus of the community. --IWI (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Somewhat understood that, however the hatnote on the old page was a bit confusing. In that case, my strong support for non-admin closures still stands, however my comment about RFCU/RFOS can be ignored since that was not proposed here. Naleksuh (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe we should have non-admin closures as mentioned because it is just asking for drama. Especially considering how we have absolutely no need of the help, I have seen on for example where discussions are "clearly" one way or the other so a non-admin closes them and all hell brakes loose because it was not actually so clear. In fact it happened very recently on this wiki where ironically it was yourself and Naleksuh who completely misread my vote as being the opposite of what it actually was. Based on that one can easily extrapolate that one of you would have closed that discussion as a non-admin because both of the votes were Keep, when in fact they were not. There is a reason why we give certain roles to admins and we don't allow just anyone to do those things, it is because we have given them the trust to know when is appropriate to close a discussion and how to close it. Since it was brought up the Commodore Nutt nomination wouldn't have needed an admin to close it anyways because it was a clearly disruptive action and it should have just been nominated for quick deletion as vandalism/test page. -Djsasso (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Administrators have been elected by the community because they have been shown to be able to exercise good judgement, as well as discern and enforce community consensus. For that reason, RfPs absolutely should not be closed by non-administrators on this wiki (and given the small community on this wiki, you probably have already participated in those RfPs too). I don't really buy the reasoning that RFCU/RFOS can be closed by non-sysops on the grounds that only a steward can grant the right - what is a stake here, I think, is not about the technical capability to grant rights. It is about the judgement call. NACs in RFDs: I personally am not bothered much by NACs in RFDs that are unambiguously (100%) a keep result, however I would strongly urge comparatively inexperienced editors to refrain from performing NACs, and if one cannot close an RFD properly without other editors needing to step in to assist, then it would be better off to leave that RFD alone. Chenzw  Talk  02:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Djsasso. There is no need, and allowing it is simply calling for drama. Administrators are elected to mediate; let's let them do the mediating. --Yottie =talk= 10:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I would say to Djsasso that both DRV discussions led to the respective deletions overturned by an admin, so are you saying these admins were wrong to do so? If not, then how can you use these as an example against NACs? Furthermore, I very clearly stated that your vote was a delete vote multiple times, so I am not sure what you mean when you say " In fact it happened very recently on this wiki where ironically it was yourself and Naleksuh who completely misread my vote as being the opposite of what it actually was". This is not true; I didn't misunderstand at all. I said it was a "weak delete" at best. --IWI (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
You completely missed the point. The issue is that you both argued that the close was "clear". But both of you misunderstood my comment and completely forgot to take into account that the nomination is also a delete. The point was that what was "clear" to you was wrong. Was Auntof6 wrong to overturn it? No because she was an admin and weighed the arguments, something that a NAC doesn't do. My point was that it was an example of completely ridiculous drama that would be caused by NACs as things are brought to DRV that shouldn't be because of disagreements over what is "clear". -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I also don't think that just being clear and nothing else is what constitutes a non-admin closure (enwiki uses non-admin closures heavily, to the point where i'm not sure if they should be appended with the template). I mean cases like WP:SNOW-esque, where there would be no "mediating" involved. Naleksuh (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict) I didn't say it was clear either, but I said that since you said there is no harm in keeping, that it was more of a weak delete vote, as opposed to a firm strong delete. As a result, in my view, consensus seemed to lean towards keep. The nom's argument was not a valid reason for deletion, as stated by Auntof6, so I didn't forget about it at all. This was why Auntof6 overturned it, as there wasn't a strong enough case made for deletion. This is also very much my view. I would advise before saying such things about editors, you check to see if it is true before stating it as fact, especially in a place such as Simple talk. This kind of close would not be one done by a non-admin; this is something I agree with, however. --IWI (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
But you did, not with the literal word, but you very much did. But again you are still missing the point, the point was not the specific discussion itself but the drama that came from a DRV discussion that never should have happened in the first place and would be much more common if NACs happened. -Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
So Naleksuh was wrong to bring it to DRV, I was wrong to think that consensus was not to delete, but Auntof6 was right to overturn the deletion? I'm sorry but this is two opposing views and doesn't make sense to me; either the deletion should have been overturned or not. You cannot say someone was wrong to bring something to DRV and in the next sentence say an admin was right to overturn it. It's one or the other. --IWI (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with Auntof6's close, but she was right to make it because she was an admin and we empower admins to make decisions so as long as she didn't break policy she is right.. For the same reason that Eptalon's close was right, he was empowered to read the arguments and decide if they matched policy. The bringing it to DRV was just part of Naleksuh's war on admins ever since he failed his first RfA. -Djsasso (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Making comments like this about other editors is highly inappropriate and unneeded, in my opinion. I would refrain from making any personal accusations in a public setting like this especially, regardless of your views (WP:NPA). I won't comment on that further. Are you alluding to the idea that admin's decisions and opinions are more important than other editors'? Because DRV is for any errors in an admin's close; they are human and make errors, even if they are not against policy in doing so. Saying that you won't contest a decision because it was made by an admin isn't really how it works. Admin's views and opinions are not superior to others, and all decisions can be scruitinised by the community, as needed. Admins are simply users who have extra tools. --IWI (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not alluding to that. What I am saying is the community gave them the power to use discretion. DRV is specifically for closes against policy, if they did not break policy it is not appropriate to take it there. It is not for just disagreeing with an admins close. If you disagree with a close you are welcome in the future to nominate it again or create the article again after a reasonable time and then consensus will again decide if it should stay or go in a new Rfd. DRV is specifically for policy breaches. And I would point out it wasn't a PA because it was a comment on their actions, not on them which is specifically what you are supposed to do. -Djsasso (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
You are implying bad faith and saying something that is entirely a matter of opinion about an editor. In my view, it is very much a personal attack (or at the very least not civil), and not something I would expect any editor to say, let alone a bureaucrat. I find it inappropriate; maybe others will disagree, I don't know. --IWI (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Admins are elected to determine, interpret, and enforce community consensus. Community consensus is implemented through the closure and determination of community discussions. Non-admins, having not been elected by the community, should not be closing discussions. Vermont (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
In any case, the point was to draft a policy page so that non-admins can be prevented from closing discussions in the future, rather than what happened with sithjar when the only thing anyone could say is "we don't do that here". We need this written in a firm policy. That is the purpose of this discussion. --IWI (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with making it written down. But I think you will find that most things on this wiki are not in firm hard policy to allow for flexibility. In fact I would say most of the various things we do have come from Simple Talk discussions that decide things as consensus but are never written as a "policy". It is this institutional knowledge that people talk about when they say people who want to be admins for example have to learn just by being in and interacting with the the community. But yes it is always helpful to have it written somewhere. -Djsasso (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Of course, but this is not useful for new editors from enwiki who will think they can close discussions here. --IWI (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, while non-admin closures might seem tempting, we have had at least 3 controversial closures recently (which ended up at the dleetion review). We allso do not need non-admin-closures, because we are probably the wiki with the most admins (or highest ratio admins to non-admins). In other words: finding an admin to lcose an RfD is easy. At least I am laso here to write an encyclopedia, and I do not need or want much drama over someone lcosing an RfD (in a different way that most people expect). It is the power of an adminisatrator ot close a request early, when the ocome becomes clear (and is unlikely to change). ALso, it shouldn't matter if RfD is there for five or for seven days. We don't need ayet another policy or guideline about non-admin closures. What makes this wiki interesting to many is that as it is smaller, we need fewer (hard-coded) rules, guidelines and policies. So: in short: I oppose non-admin closures, there's no need, and it will likely add drama because people disagree with the "clear result". --Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@Eptalon: Are you opposed to having it written in policy that non-admin closues should not take place though? That is the discussion at hand. It would only have to be short, along the lines of "on this wiki, we don't do NACs." etc. We can't expect new editors to know otherwise. --IWI (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
If there is agreement, we can write it down somewhere. Ideally, we put it on the RfD page, so that new people see that closing RfDs in the task of an admin...--Eptalon (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
How does this apply to non-crat closures done by admins? (Asking due to Special:Diff/7090747) Naleksuh (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a non-issue. With the amount of bot requests that come into this wiki (basically zero), it doesn't seem unusual that an existing sysop who already has delete/block buttons, and can grant rollback/patroller/flood/etc temporarily forgets that they cannot actually grant the bot flag. However, I cannot say that non-syops (who already don't have delete/block buttons) can temporarily forget that they are actually not able to delete pages. Chenzw  Talk  15:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
What I did in the diff that Naleksuh linked was a mistake, not an assertion that non-crats should be allowed to close bot requests. We don't need to use it to make a case for a change in procedure. Also, non-crat bot request closures is not the topic that's being discussed here. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


If we allowed NACs, I imagine we'd have rules about them similar to enwiki's. One of their rules is that NACs are not allowed if "The result will require action by an administrator". That includes delete results, because deleting requires an admin. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, this wasn't a "support/oppose" discussion of whether to allow them or not, it was a proposal to have this written on a policy page. We can't expect users to be aware of any differences around NACs if they're not written down. --IWI (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person/WikidataEdit

I've noticed that this template is on several hundred articles. It appears to be intended to retrieve information from Wikidata so that information doesn't have to be hardcoded in each article. However, in at least some cases, the results on the page have little or no information in the infobox. I think retrieving from Wikidata is a good idea, but this template doesn't seem to be doing the job very well right now. Is this something we can fix, or should we back off of this template until we can get it to work properly?

Pinging Slowking4 because they seem to have placed the template in some cases. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

change the infobox person/wikidata to include all values, not just referenced ones. or when references get added to wikidata then the box will be filled. removing boxes rather than editing wikidata is problematic: it removes interproject links without solving the information quality problem. i see there is a move to delete bio items at wikidata without references which will complete the deletion of the sum of all knowledge, [1] - Slowking4 (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The interproject links aren't tied to the infoboxes. I know this because we have many articles that have no infobox but which do have the interwiki links. I asked about this because leaving the empty infoboxes on the page looks bad. If we are going to use this, then maybe anyone adding it to a page should also make sure that Wikidata has all the relevant information so that the infobox actually contains information. Let me say again that I would love to see this working so that we don't have to hardcode information. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I switch them to based infoboxes when I see them and they are mostly empty when there is a more full version. I remove them when they are empty. Slowking has been warned before that they should not be added when they are empty. As long as they have some information in them they are not horrible and I just leave them. But in general Infobox person/Wikidata boxes are much much worse than using the typical ones we pull from because the Wikidata ones pretty much never have the equivalent information and very often have incorrect information compared to getting them from and will likely never be as good as the ones unless decides to go with wikidata which they most likely won't anytime soon since wikidata is plagued by bad information and a lack of visibility when people vandalize it versus vandalizing directly on wiki. In general we need to remember articles don't need to have infoboxes. If there is almost no information in the infobox it might be better in that case not to have one until there is. -Djsasso (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
i was going to circle back and add references to wikidata, but i guess not fast enough for you. smdh. Slowking4 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
@Slowking4: You are indefinitely blocked on Wikidata, so that would not be allowed. Using another account or otherwise logging out would be block evasion. --IWI (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thanks for the reminder, maybe you would care to edit wikidata? smh. Slowking4 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I have connected most of your articles to Wikidata and will continue to do so. If you want to edit Wikidata, you must request unblock. --IWI (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-37Edit

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


This new page on our wiki is apparently already linked to En wiki, but the link is not showing on our pages (or theirs). Needs someone to see what's going on. Thanks, Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably just needed to purge the pages cache, its linking and showing up for me. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a little weird when it doesn't show up right away, but it just takes time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the conversationEdit

Necessary and sufficient...Edit

Hello all, I created the article Necessary and sufficient conditions tooday. it illustrates concepts which are probably common in most sciewnce topics. I only wrote a stub, to be extended. Please take a look.--Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


I did a cleanup here, but how do I move "other websites" section back up? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: there was a {{clear}} template that moved the section to below the infobox. I have fixed it :) --IWI (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Most viewed articlesEdit

Can I find a list of the most viewed articles here, so I can improve them? Naddruf (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think not. The data is collected, and used to be displayed to us. For some reason the data is no longer displayed. I think it was valuable for just the reason you suggest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some way that this could be done. On en there is this weekly ranking: [7]. Naddruf (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The data is available on the Wikimedia Statistics site: [8] Chenzw  Talk  02:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. These popular articles are very strange in my opinion. Maybe these are being linked by other popular websites. Naddruf (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well the simplewiki page List of U.S. states is the third result on google here. Might have something to do with why some of these are high. --IWI (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-38Edit

16:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Smile, you're famous!Edit

Say hello to Reddit readers: (this is just a random find of mine). --Elitre (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I think this discussion further proves that more integration with enwiki will be needed if we want more readers (and thus eventually editors). Most are not aware of our existence, but agree that this Wikipedia is useful. On the flip-side, could we handle the vandalism that would come with a drastic viewership increase? --IWI (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You have a point, except that increased vandalism comes with increased editing, not increased viewing. But I also wonder if we can handle the increased number of people we'd have to shepherd through learning curves as they learn how things work here. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
True, but I think as we get more viewers, some of them will also edit/vandalise. --IWI (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the OP of that reddit post! I was summoned over by IWI and Vernon but since I've never written a thing on Wikipedia, I'm sure that this very post is a disaster on it's own. Thanks for all of what you guys do! You are awesome! X30phil1x (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@X30phil1x: Yes thanks for making this post. Our overall viewership shot up drastically after you posted it. And no, your message is not a disaster :) --IWI (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ayu Marcellia Br SitorusEdit

Please delete this page. User who created this article is a crosswiki vandal and needs a global block. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Related accounts blocked, the IP range which edited there disruptively also blocked. Unfortunately I'm on my phone and not easily able to handle speedy deletion and closure of the RfD, hopefully another admin can do so soon. Best, Vermont (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we make articles?Edit

My question is: Can we make articles on people who had already Google knowledge graph.

A knolwedge graph is some technical tool to measure how important a piece of knowledge is. We don't use knowledge graphs; our concept is called notability: Subjects that are reported in independent media are probably notable. Note also: if there is at least a hint the subject could be notable, the article will not be quickly deleted, but the community will discuss for a week. Contrary to other Wikipedias, we judge the arrticle, and the article's subject. We don't judge the editzors who created or contributed to it. In short: try and see for yourself. --Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
If they are notable, per GNG / BIO, why not? In addition, we could possibly pass a subject notablity guideline if we want to say people who have knowledge graph can be included. If I am not wrong, they are based on wikipedia info at times, people can claim them (i.e. use blue tick instangram / facebook accounts to verify). I am not sure what is google criteria to include these, so might be paid / fishy at times but mostly people / things / organizations / shops etc nonsense that have these knowledge graph typically have wikipedia pages, and those who don't can justify one page. I am just worried about the inclusion may be a little lenient for some and paid concerns. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't support such a guideline, personally. --IWI (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)