Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:EA)
Latest comment: 13 hours ago by BZPN in topic Requested moves
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Seems worse than category "QD ruled out?"

change

We have an article about 'a body part' collector. So, I checked en-wiki about the name of person being 'slandered et cetera', and s/he is mentioned 'with relatively few bells and whistles' at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_County_Detention_Center

.--The user that created the article about 'the collector', has created 2-3 articles here, and i did read a bad 'review' about 'all the user's articles', at RfD/AfD on Simle-wiki.--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update: The user that created the article about 'the collector', has created dozens of articles and/or redirects. There might not be a problem in that.--If this post is perceived as neutrally worded, then fine. 2001:2020:309:EA48:B4F4:7D88:B452:3824 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4AReply
If I use the term 'uterus collector' (which is also used in the article), I get pagers of a Georgetown Law Journal (here), the Guardian (here) or BBC (here). Those are like the first 3-4 links. So the title is probably accurate, Wikipedia isn't censored... Eptalon (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Allowing users to remove flood flag from their own account

change

Hello everyone! I was wondering why users with the flood flag can’t remove it themselves once they finish their task, especially if they complete it earlier than expected (e.g. on plwiki it's possible). Waiting for the flag to expire can prevent users from engaging in other activities. It seems like a small change that could make things more efficient, reducing the need to bother admins to turn it off manually. Allowing users to remove the flag themselves would resolve this issue. What do you think? BZPN (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BZPN: That could be good. I think it would be a software change that we can't address here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You're right. I guess we will have to report it to Meta, but I don't know anything about it. BZPN (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
To implement such an adjustment in the software, a ticket needs to be submitted in Phabricator. If a consensus to make the change is reached, the developers will review it. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question

change

How do i make a Wikipedia project page with the add topic?

Miguel Inigo Mercadal3 (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't really do WikiProjects here. There's no specific issue with having a page in your userspace though. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
change

Is there a guideline regarding how many related pages are appropriate to be included in an article? Long lists of links, which I personally don't think are relevant enough, are being added to these articles, such as Autobiography, Catholic Church, and Zionism. Depextual (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

From w:MOS:SEEALSO:
Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of Mexican cuisine.
So, there's no set number, but I usually use a rule of three being my max. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 00:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
"related pages" is a section that somehow tells about the sohrtcomings of a page: There is a page on a subject, and there are links to other pages (red or blue links in the sections of the article), but still there was now way to include the pages listed. Having too many of them likely also tells me that the page may lack focus. Eptalon (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just removed most of them as they were unrelated and pov-pushing as well. Why was Adolf Hitler a related page under autobiography? Yeah, he wrote an autobiography, but every famous person wrote an autobiography. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you; that's what I thought too. Depextual (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Elckerlijc spelling mistake

change

The page Elckerljic has a spelling mistake in the title. I am not allowed to move pages, so could someone move it to Elckerlijc for me? Special:MovePage/Elckerljic Tom9358 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article has been moved. Thank you for the notice. Griff (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nmed template proposal

change

Hello. I noticed that we don’t have a template for articles that might include unverified medical/pseudomedical information, and I think it could be useful to introduce one. It could serve as a clear warning against pseudomedical knowledge, so that the reader does not confuse it with real medicine. Here’s an example of how it could look: See Template:Alt-med notice

I'm looking forward to your feedback :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't totally work: it just seems to tell readers not to trust that article, which then raises the question of why the article exists (unless it were added to all medical articles). It could be better if the notice asked for help improving the article like other cleanup templates. Depextual (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Depextual: such a template can prevent possible confusion with medicine in articles about pseudomedical sciences. The point is not to inform that the article needs improvement - it is to inform that the data contained in it may not be consistent with current medical knowledge. An example of an article in which such a template could be placed could be Bananaphobia (of course, if it was written properly, in accordance with the policies) or Homeopathy (pseudomedicine). BZPN (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. such a template could be placed in articles such as those mentioned in List of phobias#Funny and fictional phobias (if they existed), so that they would not be confused with real diseases. BZPN (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
May I perhaps just remind you: In Wikipedia, almost any user can change almost any article. While it might be (and will be the case gicen enough revisions) that the information is scientifixcally accurate, this need not be the case, and likely isn't. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, just to cite two of the disclamers Eptalon (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eptalon: I'm not talking about mentioning medical risk. The point is to place this template in articles about topics that are widely recognized scientifically as pseudomedical, and not to warn about unverified information. As I mentioned earlier, for example, the article Homeopathy is about scientifically diagnosed alternative medicine (pseudomedicine), so it just needs to be clearly stated. BZPN (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
so a 'pseudoscience disclaimer'. Likely well known example is homeopathy. Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's exactly what I meant :).
It's a pseudomedical disclaimer. BZPN (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks good. I agree to its adoption. Steven1991 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think a disclaimer like this is needed. On the whole, we should be representing what is shown in reliable sources, to a point where this template should not be needed. If there are alternative viewpoints not presented in reliable sources, then those should be removed. I think the way Homeopathy is written is good, in terms of presenting scientific evidence that it's likely a placebo effect behind it. Bananaphobia shouldn't exist as an article and should just be deleted. So I also don't see a need at this stage. --Ferien2 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no reason not to include additional information that the article concerns pseudomedicine. This is just additional information for the reader, which improves orientation in the topic and clearly shows that the topic is contrary to science. BZPN (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can we find a formulation that doesn't include 'pseudo-'? Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we can use "alternative medicine" instead of "pseudomedicine", but those are synonims. BZPN (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agree. The word “alternative medicine” also sounds more encyclopaedic, making it the better one on this site. Steven1991 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
P.S. therefore, the template could be called {{Alt-med notice}} BZPN (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
And, for example, we have such a template in plwiki (you can see it, for example, on pl:Homeopatia), and it works quite well. BZPN (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I translate that disclaimer, it reads: 'This article describes theories, methods or activities that are inconsistent/incompatible with modern medical knowledge." Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. I included the same thing in my template, but in a more detailed version. BZPN (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have this page, so I don't really see why we would need this template. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Contributor 118,784: this template is not related to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer - it would simply serve as additional information in articles about alternative medicine, and not as a warning about the quality of medical content. The idea is to prevent possible confusion between articles about alternative medicine and articles about actual medicine among readers, e.g. those who have a poor understanding of English (such a template will attract their attention + it is noted that the article describes a non-scientific topic). BZPN (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it's my bad -- I didn't understand what you meant. In this case, I will   Support this and remove my weak support. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do i be a Bureaucrat?

change

What are the tips to be a Bureaucrat? Karuja (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Please read WP:A and WP:CRAT. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, and welcome. Bureaucrats are very experienced editors. In this wikipedia, only administrators can become bureaucrats. So, in very short terms:
  • Make many useful changes, and become aware that this Wikipedia is different from the English Wikipedia in many ways. Also take part in discussions.
  • Create, fix or extend articles that interest you.
  • Help fight vandalism, get the autopatroller or rollback flags.
  • Once you are visible and well-known enough, try to get the adminship flag.
  • After you have been an admin for some time, you can apply for bureaucrat.
Eptalon (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seasonally-themed DYK hooks?

change

I just wondered if we could find new editors, if you try the next DYK update with seasonally-themed hooks?- Another question, if we decide to do that, do we have any that we could call 'seasonally-themed'? Eptalon (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The idea is good, but it would probably take a lot more work to prepare. Overall, I support the idea. BZPN (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support This seems like a fun idea. I'm in favor. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, then. How many seasonally-themed DYKs can we get in the week that's left? Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Is it about how many articles? BZPN (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are about six hooks on the Main Page now, so there should be six seasonal hooks, thus, six articles. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I   Support that. BZPN (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support What a cute idea! I love it! We could find some hooks about holidays like Christmas, Hanukkah, Yule, or about other things like Santa Claus (Simple is also targeted to children who might like some fun facts about Santa). If we don't make it in time, we can always have seasonal hooks in the future, like Chinese New Year in February. I have an exam tomorrow, so I don't really have time to find the hooks now, but just some ideas. Tomorrow evening I should have more time. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I extended A Christmas Carol quite a bit, with text from EnWP. Unfortunately, their way of citing is not how we usually do it. Might also look into simpilfying some of the material. As always, anyone's welcome to help Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support Love the idea! it would look so cute! So I am in favor of this! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 08:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support A fine idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Strong support I love it :D There could be a lot of great ideas that can come from them, and there could be some kind of special template put aside for it (eg. Template:Did you know/STQ/1 (or something like that)). I’m pretty sure that an experienced editor can manually update the special ones, or somehow FehuBot could extend its duties to do so. I’m pretty sure I have some time the next two weeks, so any5ing specialised of a DYK I could put into User:Asteralee/STQ. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 02:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support seems like a fun idea, lets give it a shot.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Infobox next/prev seasons not linking

change

Hi, I updated Module:Infobox television season name because Waterloo Road series articles were showing as "Waterloo Road series 1", "Waterloo Road series 2" etc etc instead of just "Series 1", "Series 2" (these were linked)

However this update as now resulted in previous and next TV series/seasons not linking (ie for The Simpsons (season 3) - The Simpsons (season 2) and The Simpsons (season 1) are not linked and just as unlinked bold text),

I've not updated the other modules connected to Template:Infobox television season but I'm assuming outdated modules aren't the reason?, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced that there isn't something a bit screwy with the en version as well. Looking at the examples at en:Module:Infobox television season name/doc, they don't actually link to the pages they say they do. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the examples there are supposed to be like that as it's saying for example under "getNextSeasonArticle" that linking "Lost (season 3)" will give you Lost (season 4) using the getNextSeasonArticle jargon, It makes sense in my head but I can't explain it on paper, I think they're correct anyway,
This seems to be a growing problem on here where templates are word for word the same as enwiki but they still don't work, {{jctbtm}} was one example, Invoking templates appears to be another problem here, I'll have a play about and see what I can achieve which I suspect wont be very much, thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I figured it out; Articles need to have the following parameters in the infobox for seasons to show,
Example:
| next_season = [[Family Guy (season 4)|Season 4]]
| prev_season = [[Family Guy (season 2)|Season 2]]
Without this the infoboxes don't show anything, Anyway I've reverted my updates as we can't expect editors who copypaste articles from enwiki to know that these parameters are needed, We already have a big red notice on the {{shortdesc}} template telling people tor remove it but people still add the template and ignored the notice anyway, Imho it creates more problems than what it's worth, No objections to reversion providing there's an easy fix for this, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question about this article

change

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmelo_Borg_Pisani It seems to be written in British English, I have fixed some of the words but I don't know if any type of English is allowed? Is British English the same as regular English? Please let me know if you folks have an answer. Thank you! - J.J. Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think, likely any type of English isa allowed. We want to create an encyclopedia, and to add interesting ingformation .With time, more than one person will have edited the artilcle, so it would be nice to have only one form of a word... Eptalon (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jayden Johnson 2314 Unrelated question but why do you have two accounts ?, Are you aware of WP:SOCK?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes I am highly aware @Davey2010...
And @Eptalon thanks! :) Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jayden Johnson 2314....... so why do you have two accounts ?.... You've edited with your other one 30 minutes ago so it's not privacy related.... –Davey2010Talk 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Davey2010 I put a reason why on your talk page ;) Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I've said in my reply you need to stick to one account, If I see you editing with both accounts I'll just report you for socking and you'll be blocked on both accounts which I don't really want to do because judging by your edits on your main account you're a productive editor, Thank you for at least being honest about why but yeah unfortunately your reason isn't a valid one as we have password reset systems and other systems that can get your account back, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I have learned a lot ever since the incident over at the regular English Wiki... I made a terrible mistake... And I have learned a lot to not make the same mistake ever again, of course I was young and I didn't know any better, but now I have learned over the course of time (like months in time)... Unfortunately I am still blocked at the regular English Wiki, and I don't want to end up the same fate here too... Thank you for listening to my ramble there (lol) XD
Anyways... Happy Editing, and have a great rest of your night! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 00:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Jayden Johnson 2314, @Davey2010: I don't know what caused the conversation about multitple accounts, but in some cases multiple accounts are acceptable. You can look at WP:SOCK to see when they can be allowed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Auntof6, Please see this, Multiple accounts are acceptable but not for a user who had created 10 accounts on enwiki which all got cu-blocked. I'll be honest I was going to let this slide until their comment above about them "learning a lot". Thanks –Davey2010Talk 01:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
To address your issue, British English, American English, Canadian English, Irish English, etc. etc. are considered national varieties of English and per WP:ENGVAR they are all treated as equally correct and valid here. The first major contributor chooses which variety of English to use. The rule is 1) If it is about something British, use British English, etc. 2) Use just one for the whole article with no switching. We use the simplified versions of all of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested moves

change

Hi. I have been trying to find a page that is basically the equivalent of "Wikipedia:Requested moves" on EN wiki but to no avail. Is this the place where we submit such requests especially since some pages cannot be moved by regular users and need the intervention of an administrator or page mover? For instance, I was trying to move Akbar Rafsanjani to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani per WP:COMMONNAME and for consistency with the article on EN wiki but it has become apparent to me that I cannot make the move myself. Would be glad if someone could provide some guidance. Keivan.f (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. There is no such page on simplewiki - all requests and questions should be directed here or to AN (if they require administrator intervention). You couldn't move the page because the target page already existed in the form of a redirect (Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani). I moved its content manually. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BZPN: Please don't move pages manually because we lose the edit history. Thanks.
I will revert the original page and redo the move to preserve the history. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see, thank you. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
what BZPN said. You'll find quite a few active noticeboards on enwiki don't exist here, simply because there is little need for a dedicated noticeboard for something that doesn't happen a lot. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's totally understandable. Thanks to both of you for your help and inputs. Keivan.f (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply