Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Editor review)
Latest comment: 5 hours ago by BRPever in topic Twitter / X RFC

Thoughts from other editors on an article change

Hello. I wanted to get others thoughts on this article Parish (country subdivision) which was just created. I am not finding it anywhere else and I am debating to myself if it is something we should keep. Perhaps, I was thinking, is make Parish a disambiguation page (currently it is only about churches) and create links to the various Parish lists we have. I would love to see the thoughts of others. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 00:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just linked the article in Wikipedia. As for Parish, it is fine as it is because the religious meaning is the primary one. It could use a hatnote pointing to the non-religious one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6 Where you linked it to should actually be this article Administrative division which is redirected from Parish (administrative division). It is confusing because Q56061 points to Administrative division on ENWP. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I linked it correctly. The content of the articles I linked is the same. I changed the target of the redirect to the article closest in meaning. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6 Ah ok. Thanks. It was just really confusing following along with the redirects and both sites. Thanks. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 01:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In England parish is an administration areas within which people live. fr33kman 13:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In Louisianna , it's the same situation. Wekeepwhatwekill  Speak! 15:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Enabling noindex in article space change

Following on from Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 133#Use of QD A4, there was a rough consensus to implement NOINDEX in article space, however it wasn't really considered worth it for the actual impact it would have, especially as it would differ from all other WMF sites. There was a discussion on my talk page, at User talk:Ferien#Why, where the idea of noindexing pages at RfD was bought up again. This time, it was pointed out by Lee Vilenski that enwiki actually has a system whereby pages newer than 90 days are not indexed unless they are patrolled – see w:WP:NOINDEX for how they do things.

Now, we don't want any AfC/NPP-like processes here (as was rejected in Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 134#Proposal: Introducing Wikiproject Article for Creation), but we could adjust our patrol system so that only articles that were either patrolled and/or existed for, let's say 10 days, would be indexed. This would allow the time for the notability of articles to be discussed at RfD, while not worrying about the article effectively serving as a free promotion for the person, company etc being discussed at RfD. This would also, hopefully, reduce the misuse of A4 that is still occurring over 3 years on from that original discussion. Thoughts? --Ferien (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support - As I mentioned before, I'm obviously fully in favour. I think it's worth noting that, I think the technical solution is pretty simple, and just a case of opening a phab ticket for the change to be made. I like the idea of ten days, as it is enough time for an article to go through AfD if suitable. I can see a massive upside to not indexing potentially dangerous articles, and the only downside being a small wait for indexing on good faith articles.
Enwiki also has w:WP:autopatrolled permission. Whilst not part of this discussion, would be easy enough to setup to give a flag to community members who make a lot of articles to bypass the delay (if they care). A potential discussion for a later date if this were to proceed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Lee Vilenski: we already have patroller which serves as both our patrol and autopatrol right. --Ferien (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, no problem, didn't realise it was bundled. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support 10 days.--BRP ever 07:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just going to add 'unless marked patrolled' just to be precise haha. BRP ever 15:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@BRPever agreed, YGM on this one haha. DIVINE 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lacking change

We lack some of the literary glories of the American 20th century (I don't mean we have nothing at all):

  1. Another Country (James Baldwin)
  2. Rosemary's Baby (Ira Levin)
  3. The New York Trilogy (Paul Auster)
  4. Jazz, 1992.

Source: Times literacy desk.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jazz (novel). 2001:2020:345:F8B4:5180:685C:26D2:409A (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have just made Another Country (James Baldwin). --Yottie =talk= 13:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have written Rosemary's Baby (novel), please proofread for simplicity & clarity. We already had Rosemary's Baby (the article about the movie). Eptalon (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Active talk pages change

Some editors cover sensible talk pages with the standard TP cover. That's not sensible because it means the relevant content cannot be directly seen. Stop doing that, please! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you be more specific, or give an example?
If you're talking about user talk pages, then users are allowed to remove content from their talk pages, including by blanking or replacing content with the talk header. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What to do? change

When they make good faith edits, but their summary is offensive, is rollback with a warning suitable, or is it better to request revdel? [2]. DIVINE 09:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DIVINE: If the content of the edit is not offensive, then rollback will not work. As for revdel, it depends on exactly what is in the edit summary. Feel free to ask for revdel if you feel it's needed, but be aware that it might be declined. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Depends on how bad the edit summary is. I'd reacquaint yourself with what the level is for being revdelled. It is possible to revdel just an edit summary and not the change. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6 @Lee Vilenski i have given example over there with link. DIVINE 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That link probably doesn't quite meet the criteria, but you can always ask at WP:AN. It's clearly not nice. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is likely an edit from LTA/GRP. He is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and is not allowed to make any edits to any Wikipedia Project no matter if they are good or bad. (From his LTA page). 84Swagahh (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is from the third paragraph on the English Wikipedia's LTA/GRP page. 84Swagahh (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's GRP. I've revdeled it. fr33kman 19:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tropical Depression Ten (2005) nominated for demotion change

Hello everyone. I currently nominated Tropical Depression Ten (2005) for demotion due to it being nominated for a merger, article quality not quite as good (thorough) and enwiki has it merged as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, OK with me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed fr33kman 15:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pitt County, North Carolina change

Is Pitt County, North Carolina simple enough? If not, how can we make it simpler? Kk.urban (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kk.urban: I think it could be simpler. I just did some work on it, but I haven't checked all of it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. One question: Why does "The county was made in 1760 from Beaufort County" need to be clarified? Kk.urban (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kk.urban: It's not clear exactly what was done. Did Beaufort County turn into Pitt County? Did they take part of Beaufort County to make a new county called Pitt? I suspect it was the latter, but it could say that more clearly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Auntof6 The latter. I changed it to "The county was made in 1760 from part of Beaufort County". Is that good enough? Kk.urban (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

African Americans now semi-protected change

Hello all, I looked at the edit history of African Americans, and I saw that in the last few months, most edits were either racist vandalism (by IP editors) or reverting that vanalism. For this reason, I have semi-protected the page for six months. While Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit (almost) any page, racist slurs are among the things we do not need. I have no issue at all blocking such editors. Note to all the good-faith IP-editors: you can still discuss changes on the talk page of the article, and an autoconfirmed user will post them, once there is agreement. Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request to archive the Main Page Talk change

There was a request to archive the Main Page Talk: Talk:Main Page#Request for Comments: Archiving this Page. It never got much attention. So what should be done? Kk.urban (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This has been set up: posts older than 180 days will get archived automatically. Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Total Backlog Annihilation: Phase III change

Hi everyone, I have just started phase III of the Total Backlog Annihilation project. In this phase, the aim is to clear Category:Underpopulated categories. Please visit User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase III to learn more. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Drug use for recreation" vs. "Recreational drug use" (title) change

Is Drug use for recreation (title for a new article), a simplification of Recreational drug use (title of the en-wiki article)? Or do the meaning perhaps not overlap 100% ?--For the record - one has suggested that Hard and soft drugs (title), gets nuked. (And if that article gets sucked into a Black-hole, then so be it.)--Please note that Recreational drug use is only a name: for whatever reason, English-wiki has ended up with that name for now.--I am okay with that title, and their article, for now. 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems that En-wiki once had an article called the same as ours.--Anyhow, something happened along the way.--Perhaps, the following gives us some ideas: en:Talk:Recreational_drug_use/Archive_1#Merge_Proposition . 2001:2020:345:8F5E:AC05:2213:2990:C102 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think recreation is any simpler than recreational and neither is a simple word. Besides that, the first one could be read as meaning drug use related to recreational activities, such as taking performance-enhancing drugs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. If one isn't simple English, then neither is the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Drug use (recreational drug use) - how about that for a title? Justification: it is (arguably) simpler than "Recreational drug use" - and in additon it answers Which subset of drug-use, is this article about.--The idea about "soft drug" - is different from country to country (and some experts in western countries, seem to be saying that there are no "soft drugs"). 2001:2020:343:EBC5:C1C3:B215:18EE:D687 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3Reply

I think we need to translate "recreational." Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Darkfrog24 - Recreational ... can be explained in section:Etymology or Origin of name.--There is no rule that all the words in an article title, have to be simple.--When an article has an okay title, then that article is a good place to explain, why the politics of America, ended up using the phrase Recreational drug use.--Not sure that is it helpful, to try to translate "recreational", before one has decided the limits of Recreational drug use, and how those limits might have changed over time (say, in the United States).--There were some that claimed that smoking "grass" was regarded as Recreational drug use, while injecting opium-related things was beyond Recreational drug use. (Don't have a source, however that view might at best be a fringe view in the western world.)--Some phrases that have become catch-all phrases, do not translate nice-and-simple. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3Reply
I think the point of Simple is not "If you don't understand it, you can stop reading the article and go somewhere else to look it up" but rather "you don't have to break your rhythm." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have the following cases:
  1. Drug is used for a medical condition; perhaps a doctor prescribed it
  2. Drug is used for a medical condition, but was developed for something else ("off-label use")
  3. Drug is used to enhance performance ("doping"); likely it wasn't prescribed
  4. Drug is used outside the medical context, because of an effect it has; likley not monitored by a doctor.
And no, the difference between recreation and recreational isn't big, and the term needs to be explained. Likley we want to cober the last case of those I listed, with the category. Eptalon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Category 4" - i am somewhat sceptical to that definition, for now.--Example: one gets a months supply of tablets from an MD. The MD has given written instructions to take 3 per day. There will be cases where the patient starts out the day, according to the MD's instructions. However, after 5 days, there are no tablets left.--Another thing, there is an Oxycodone epidemic in at least one country. Maybe that fits in, with Category 4, or maybe not. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:1C7C:4417:8C67:2D4D (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3Reply
With category 4, I was more thining about the usual drug addict, who takes, for example heroin, because it makes them feel good. Heroin is an opioid, and as the other opioiods, there's a strong effect of habituation; people also get dependent on it. Eptalon (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are no very clear objective distinctions here. The term recreation isnt very clear, and what counts as abuse is rather subjective. What is prescribed changes with time and place. Rathfelder (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And "Hard drug" and "Soft drug" no very clear objective distinctions.--There is even the case of Thailand's current cabinet: it seems to be paving the way for having cannabis outlawed (Marijuana became somewhat legal to use, a couple of years ago.)--Trying to decide if a drug might be a soft-drug, can be compared to deciding the boundaries/limits of short pieces of string. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3Reply

Idea:Very Good Lists change

This would be adapted from enwiki's featured lists. Similar idea. Probably needs to be edited but heres a basic first draft of (simplified) criteria:

1:Writing. It very well written.

2:Lead. It has an interesting lead that is a summary of the article.


3A:It talks about the entirety of the subject, has all important things and if you are able to all things that would be belong in that list, and it has notes giving helpful facts about the stuff in the list.

3B:Things in the article are sourced where the thing is. They have inline sources and cite all things that must have sources.

3C:It is a list, isn't a content fork or mostly a duplicate from a different article, couldn't be included in another article.

4:Structure. It is easy to read through, where useful there are sections and tables

5:Style. It follows the Manual of Style.

5A:Looks good, using tables, color, formatting, etc. Lower number of redlinks.

5B:It has related images. They don't have issues with copyright and non-free images meet the criteria and are labeled.

5C:Good formatting, all readers can read easily. Bulleted lists and table are done correctly.

6:Stale. No change war happening, list changes little from day to day.

7:Simple. It is written in Simple English, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and meets everything needed of every article (neutral, not original reasearch, reliable sources, notable, etc.)

VGL process would be similar to VGA, except having to meet these criteria. Think it would be nice to have a way to assess lists as well. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

We already have good articles, and very good articles; when I look at the general participation, I don't think we need yet another one of these. Especially since the "very good" implies that they would be comparable to VGAs. The last promotion to VGA was over 6 months ago... Eptalon (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well lists can't be GA or VGA, right? What does the last promotion to VGA have anything to do with this. And at least on enwiki, Featured lists are pretty comparable to Featured articles@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
All I am saying: this is a small community, and getting something to VGA is a huge effort; if I now say that there's an other category (comparable to) VGA, likely we won't see more people working towards that goal. Even with GA, which isn't as complete, getting an article there takes months, and as you can see, some articles do not get promoted (likely also, because it takes too long). Eptalon (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
So what you are saying is that because it is hard to make quality content, we should limit how we recognize quality content and improve qualtiy. I get your point, but of course quality content is hard, otherwise most content would be high-quality.@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you looked, what's the usual time, such a list at enwp needs from first nomination to promotion? Eptalon (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think what you meant was "What is the average time on English Wikipedia it takes for a Featured List to get promoted from when it is nominated?"
Since it's impractical to go through all of them, I'm just using the 10 most recent ones. So in days:40,23,40,64,22,31,26,33,15,47. Average is 34.1 days. Why?@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
And how many of our GAs/VGAs got promoted in say 1-1.5 months? - Our community is much smaller.... Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah it takes longer sometimes, but 50% of VGAs actually (in the past 30 months)@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Weak oppose I don't think this will help improve Wikipedia much. On English Wikipedia, people often add a lot of text that is only vaguely related to the topic, so it can meet the standard for a featured list. If someone is just looking for the list, that may make it harder to read. Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists.
Kk.urban (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists."
I strongly disagree. There is no reason a list can't have Simple English. There is also no reason is can't have good writing. It wouldn't be the same as the enwiki list, it would be simpler english, the point of this wiki@Kk.urban Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Me Da Wikipedian OK I'm not going to remove my comment, or say that I have changed my mind, but people can ignore my comment if they want. If you think this is a good idea, then how about you write or improve a list so that it would qualify for "very good list" status? Then other users can look over it, and it can serve as an example. We could see where to go from there. Kk.urban (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, that will probably take a bit of time but I'll try@Kk.urban Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tend to agree with Eptalon, there needs to be a focus on the current GA/VGA processes. I see no benefit of adding a VGL process. People can still write lists if they want to, without the need to make them featured. Yottie =talk= 19:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with KK, Yottie and Eptalon. This is a perfectly good idea, but there's no point enacting it to sit on a shelf and gather dust. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why is a VGL process taking away from GA/VGA. No article could be both, it's like by trying to get an article to VGL your preventing it from becoming a VGA. The purpose would be to have a standard for, idenify, and showcase, high quality lists. I see no reason that it would "sit on a shelf and gather dust".@Yottie@Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Have you looked at Proposed good articles: look at when they were put up, and how much time has passed since then,without much changes? - VGL would be similar, except, as we are talking about "very good", times would be even longer. Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this is a smaller wiki and it would take a bit longer sometimes. Honestly, the GAN article waiting the longest on enwiki is significantly longer than ours so...Also, this is a wikipedia, theres no deadline, it's okay if things take time@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thats not the point, the point is: at some point people lose interest. Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is true of literally everything. That could also be an arguement for not having this wiki@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, lets perhaps do it differently: do you think there is a widespread commutity support for the idea? Eptalon (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, I posted it here to ask what people thought. But I would imagine, if we made it, we get a bunch of VGL's. Using enwiki as an example, theres about as many featured lists and there are feautured articles@Eptalon Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

To answer your point, I simply don't feel there is the appetite for further process. The idea isn't a bad one, but it's currently redundant. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the current situation still allows for users to write excellent lists. It just means there is no process to recognise them. Yottie =talk= 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, agreed. However a process to recognise them needs a way to determine what is high-quality. This gives a standard for people to try meet when improving lists, and then a way for people to notice and mark high-quality lists as such. It is not redundant. Something being redundant means it's not useful, a duplicate with no other purpose. This could be useful, and is not a duplicate, as lists can't be GA/VGA@Yottie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redundant is used in the sense of superfluous, in this instance. I do not agree that a process for VGL is required. If you really wanted to outline how to write an excellent list, how about writing a page similar to this, Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, for lists instead? Yottie =talk= 17:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Superflous itself means more than sufficent/unneccessary. I disagree. What this (and GA/VGA) is going for is:
1.Standard For High Quality- This is covered by your above suggestion
2.Way To Identify And Display Quality Content - Not covered by your suggestion
3.Way For The Community To Determine If A Page Is High Quality - Sort of covered by your suggestion, not entirely
As you can see that misses a few stuff. As I see the opposition arguements are such
1.'We already have GA/VGA - These are not overlapping with a proposed VGL at all, how is this related
2.It's hard to make quality content - Of course it is, what sets it apart is that someone has put in the hard work to make it quality.
3.People add unrelated stuff on enwiki to make it a featured list - Please find 1 example. Irrelevant stuff should be removed, and a VGL process would not change that.
4.Lists will be the same as enwiki lists - Why? Is there any reason we couldn't simply a list too?
5.You can still write good lists - Of course, I can also write great articles without GA/VGA. Should we remove them
6.People eventually lose interest - True of everything, could be used as an arguement to get rid of this wiki as well.
7.It would be unused - Why? On enwiki there are about as many FLs as there are FAs
8.Long wait - GA/VGA has a long wait. Enwikis GA/FA/FL has a long wait. People can wait. It's a wikipedia, theres no deadline. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's funny, having looked at Simple Talk archives, I realise I suggested VGLs 15 years ago on this very same page. Eptalon gave the same reasoning as he did above, and I think he still has a valid point. Not to discredit the points you make, but judging by the comments above I just don't think editors are all that bothered by the concept. --Yottie =talk= 22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Funny indeed. I see you've changed your mind. Note that I refuted all of Eptalon's points. Is there one of those you disagree with the reasoning/conclusions of?@Yottie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Clearly other people have proposed this too (here's one example, here's another, a third, and a fourth). Totally feels like the exact complaint by The Obento Musubi in the next section. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article feedback 2 change

Hi, Just wanted to ask; are the tables at Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024#Overview hard to read/messy?, An IP believes so so wanted to seek feedback, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 15:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For one thing, 90% of the links are redlinks Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I plan to create these, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unlinked song names - chances of these ever being created is slim so I've unlinked those, The <country> at Eurovision articles I plan to create at some point, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I made the first table, Simple. Diff, .--I removed the "R/O" stuff - it is an added detail that adds little, and borders (arguably) onto overkill. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another change: diff, .--Easier to read, now. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with R/O being removed and I've removed that and replaced it with "Order"
The numbering doesn't make it hard, imho the points and place do however given all 3 sections mention voting it's therefore common sense to include it?
I certainly do believe the tables need simplifying and I commend you for at least trying to battle it but as I said the order column isn't the issue and I don't know how else it can be simplified ? Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Copyrighted? change

Hello! I've came across this poster used for The Super Mario Bros. Movie and I was wondering if this is a copyright issue. As far as I know, posters are not used on this Wikipedia due to the non-free use rationale (that does not allow it to be uploaded to Commons for use). However, it was noted in the description of the file that I cropped the image and used lightning filters. it is from The movie database and the uploader has cited it as their own work. This poster is also not the theatrical release poster. Should I put it up for deletion? Jolly1253 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jolly1253, Unfortunately the image would be a copyright violation as I've found the image here, You may also want to tag their other file as that was taken from, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 14:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Took me a while to learn how to tag the images for deletion, but at least it's done. @Davey2010 Thank you for the helpful response! Jolly1253 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Jolly1253, I would've done it for you but kinda blocked there lol, Brilliant thank you for tagging them, You're welcome :), Happy editing, Many thanks, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Katyn Massacre change

Hello, A message on my talk page today got me thinking about the facts on the Katyn Massacre article. There are currently no references on the page which talk about the numbers of deaths. Across different version of Wikipedia, including the English WP and German WP (where the page is Featured), numbers seem to range from a precise 21,857 to ranges between 22 and 25 thousand. They also distinguish between deaths at Katyn itself (4-5k) and in the related massacres. Does anyone object if we add this to the page, with references? I'm bringing it here in an attempt to stay away from the article's talk page, for obvious reasons. Yottie =talk= 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please go ahead, but bear in mind that the 20k-25k are likely the total number. Those killed in the forest near Katyn are 4.400-5.000. Alexander Shelepin wrote in 1959 that 4421 had beenkilled in a "forest near Katyn". In 1994, a list was given to Poland by Ukraine; it contains 3435 names. A similar list assembled by Belarus contains 3870 names. 4410 to 4430 graves of Polish victims, killed in 1940 were found. Be careful about the sources you use. Eptalon (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also: Nazi troops discovered the massacre, it would be great if we could get sources of the time (that is: likely, the 1940s). Eptalon (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

May 17: can/should we do something? change

Hello, On May 17, there's the en:International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, which is organized by the UN, and where there are events in many cities, and countries. May 17 is about a week off. So the big question: Can/Should we (as SEWP) do something on that day? Eptalon (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, at least one thing seems to be missing: We don't have all the sub-templates that the following (linked) template has, some or all of those templates, would be doing something. Thougts?--(Doing an inventory of which templates we do not have, is also somewhere to start.) 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done - the template has been started, 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isla > Isla (given name) change

Please move Isla, to Isla (given name). Then i can translate
. Thanks. 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Dream Indigo 19:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone want to look at an issue with a template? change

I've been working on clearing Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Some of the articles are in the category because they use the parameter alt_name in Template:Infobox television. Our template doesn't accept it, but enwiki's does so it seems like that parameter should work. For the time being, I'm not removing it. Would anyone like to see if they can figure out why our template doesn't allow that parameter when enwiki's does? It doesn't look like our copy is back-leveled. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I'm not exactly experienced with editing templates, I can say for sure that at no point in the source does it ever mention a alt_name parameter, while using view source on EN's template brings up 2 mentions of the parameter.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like we might need to update more than just that parameter. I'll keep a list as I work on these. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, for now I'm changing the parameter to be what our template expects. Later on, we can change things to match enwiki if we want to (we probably should due to things being transwikied). --

Merge proposal: Help:Gadget-HotCat & Wikipedia:HotCat change

On simplewiki, we have two pages: Help:Gadget-HotCat (almost useless, but with pictures, redirects and stuff) and Wikipedia:HotCat (with useful instructions). On enwiki, en:Help:Gadget-HotCat redirects to en:Wikipedia:HotCat. I suggest we merge those two pages on simplewiki. Dream Indigo 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I have no perspective on which title the merged page should have. Do you? —Justin (koavf)TCM20:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf I would personally follow enwiki and most other languages and title the merged page "Wikipedia:HotCat". Dream Indigo 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC change

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__) and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

attribution change

If I simplify something from do I need to credit the original somewhere? Where do I write that and what do I need to write? LagoonGoose (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can put a link in the edit summary or post on the talk page or be extra cautious and do both. —Justin (koavf)TCM07:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LagoonGoose: I believe putting the info in the edit summary is deprecated. It should go on the article talk page. Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution has information about how to do what you're talking about. If you have questions, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
if you use the translation tool the first edit will contain a link to the revision you translated Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eptalon but @Auntof6 said the edit summary option was "deprecated"? LagoonGoose (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
it doesn't add an explicit attribution to the talk page... Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Draft change

Hello, I'm simplifying an article to publish here, and I was wondering,

1. How do I submit the draft? 2. I added that it's a translation on the talk page, do I need to put anything else?

I was also wondering if anyone could also help me with simplifying it, if I missed anything. RoyalSilver (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked at the draft in-depth, but the consensus here is that in general, schools below university/college level are not notable. So, getting that arccepted will likely be difficult. Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The school is a major part in Topeka, and is a historical site. It's also on the English Wikipedia so I thought it would be notable RoyalSilver (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eptalon, forgot to mention RoyalSilver 16:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A building or a stationary facility, can be a historical site. However, the school is an institution - and i have some doubt that the mentioned institution in Topeka, is a historical site. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Where can I find the consensus about not generally including schools? (I would think that schools like Exeter, Eton, Philips, Bronx High School of Science and Uni High (Urbana) would be of interest to some of our readers.)Kdammers (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are we lacking categories? change

Hello, I wrote unexploded bomb and demining today. I weas looking for a fitting category, but didn't find any. While trhere might be a theme complex with land mine, most unexploded bombs aren't land mines. Any idea what category to use? Eptalon (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Are we lacking categories?" - Yes we are and we have User:Auntof6 and the QD-taggers to thank for it. To answer your question I guess Category:Explosives would be the best one as sort of related sort of not, –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the idea to require three pages for a category isn't a bad one Eptalon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess there's pros and cons to it but I feel it's a terrible idea as it doesn't allow categories to be branched out and expanded (unless you're creating 3-4 articles within one day), –Davey2010Talk 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Categorisation is hierarchical. If there isnt one which fits exactly you must look wider. When there are enough articles then you make a new category - which fits into the wider scheme. Rathfelder (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
for the unexploded bomb the category is explosives, for the other I created a category mines and mine removal. Nevertheless, cat: explosives is growing big, but that's a different problem Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Davey2010: When you're criticizing another editor, please have the courtesy to let them know about it somehow, perhaps by linking their user name or doing a ping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have now pinged you, Hope this helps. –Davey2010Talk 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps an appropriate time to mention User:Ferien/WikiProject TBA/Phase III, which is encouraging editors to find entries for existing categories with few entries, to avoid this problem! --Ferien (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to submit draft? change

Hi, I was looking to submit my draft, but there's nowhere I can do it, or I at least don't know how on this Wikipedia, could someone help me? RoyalSilver 17:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! We don't really have a system in place for drafts due to our small size. When you feel like the article you have written is ready to be a "true" article you can move it to the title you want.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @RoyalSilver.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
[The following, has already been answered, two threads above.]I would like to add a question: How can one estimate, so to speak, if a school is wiki-notable (for Simple-wiki)?--(As far as the mentioned school in Topeka: there is an article at En-wiki,
and that article has apparently never been sent to AfD/ RfD.) 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Twitter / X RFC change

Hi, Not sure the best way of doing this,

So over at EN there looks to be a consensus to keep the Twitter name (RFC/diff) with en:Twitter under Elon Musk being moved to en:X (social network),

We don't have Twitter under Elon Musk here so I don't know whether we should move Twitter to X (social network) or keep as is ?,

Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

For now how about we keep Twitter as is and just add a section about Twitter under Elon Musk. Later, we can just move that section into X (social network) after the article expands into a longer page. BRP ever 02:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Reply