Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Editor review)



Edit war or change war?Edit

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)

PollEdit

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)

Other namesEdit

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)

Wikipedia:IntroductionEdit

This page seems to be a second sandbox, but should not be for several reasons.
1) Many users confuse edits to this page as vandalism, not aware it is a second sandbox
2) There is no reason to have two sandboxes to begin with
3)It could be confusing for people attempting to read this page to see random tests below it.
I will propose to retire this page as a sandbox, fully protect it and link to Wikipedia:Sandbox instead. Thoughts? Naleksuh (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This was talked about in a section a few weeks back, this is the first page of an interactive tutorial, it is not a stand alone page. Also it gets reset like the other sandbox so the random edits are only there for a few minutes until the bot reverts. -Djsasso (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  Support We should redirect that page to the sandbox, to avoid confusion, I removed that page from my watchlist to avoid confusion, I thought the edits were vandalism, but then saw it was a sandbox. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose the introduction page is good for new users; I see no reason from that standpoint to retire the page. IWI (chat) 13:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
comment i was going to say add a link, but it is there Do you want your own sandbox? Create a user subpage. maybe you want that large, bold and highlighted? Slowking4 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose This page should not be redirected to the sandbox. This page is part of a sequence of tutorials, and needs to keep the current content. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  Oppose per Auntof6. Desertborn (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Moving George VI of the United Kingdom to George VIEdit

I would like to move the page in the heading to a shorter title to match that on the English Wikipedia. However, I am unable to do so. I know on the English Wikipedia, there is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but that does not exist on this Wikipedia. How do I request the page to be moved? Interstellarity (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • This is reasonable: shorter titles win if there is no ambiguity. And don't worry about the mechanics, it would be done for you if that is the consensus. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Macdonald-ross, above. Non-controversial, simpler. --Yottie =talk= 13:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done -Djsasso (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Very Good ArticlesEdit

Hello, I have looked through our Very Good Articles, and see that a lot of them need some work to ensure they keep their status. Of the 34 VGAs, the following have issues:

28 articles. I don't mean to seem harsh, but that is more than half our VGAs. I realise that some of these issues are only minor, and won't take too long to fix. Others are more concerning. I can see SOFIXIT being thrown around in response, but it is our collective responsibility to look into these issues further. --Yottie =talk= 18:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to go through some of them. These should be our very best work. IWI (chat) 18:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues with categoriesEdit

I came across this category: Category:Wikipedia and I feel that there are some things we can remove from this category that shouldn't be in the category. For example, we could remove Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 11, User:Prahlad balaji/sandbox, and User:Vnencak.e. If someone can take a look into it, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done They are just pages that have categories activated that shouldn't be. Its easy enough to just deactivate them, no need to come here and post. Just deactivate the cat. -Djsasso (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: It can be tempting to just remove such categories with HotCat, but please check before doing that. Sometimes the problem is just that a colon was left off when wanting to display a category name. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Thank you. I will keep that in mind. Interstellarity (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:OxygenEdit

I'm currently involved in dispute resolution on the talk page with Legerrich. Would like more comments. He She has taken upon himself herself to declare the discussion finished and has changed the article how he she wanted it. Won't revert due to edit warring rules. Thanks, IWI (chat) 05:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Then asking for more voices is the thing to do, IWI. But I am sorry; I cannot find which talk page you mean. Never mind. I see it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing the names of articlesEdit

Hello Simple talk, I was just wondering whether you can change the names of articles.-Thanks! TheBlankSlate (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes article names can be changed, once you are autoconfirmed you will have a more option at the top of your page and you can select move from it. Whether or not a given article should be changed is another matter. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Move errorEdit

You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason:

"῾Eta" cannot be moved to "῾eta", because the title "῾eta" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: (?!(User|Wikipedia)( talk)?:|Talk:)\P{L}*\p{Greek}.*[^\p{Greek}\P{L}].* <moveonly> # Greek + non-Greek


Anyone can edit the filter as such? Naleksuh (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Same thing happened to me when I tried just now... --sithjarjar666 (my contribs | talk to me | email me | see my enwiki profile) 18:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Annual contest Wikipedia Pages Wanting PhotosEdit

This is to invite you to join the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP) campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and win prizes. The campaign starts today 1st July 2020 and closes 31st August 2020.

The campaign primarily aims at using images from Wikimedia Commons on Wikipedia articles that are lacking images. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photo images, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years.

Please visit the campaign page to learn more about the WPWP Campaign.

With kind regards,

Thank you,

Deborah Schwartz Jacobs, Communities Liaison, On behalf of the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Organizing Team - 08:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

feel free to translate this message to your local language when this helps your community

Requesting page mover rightsEdit

I would like to get page mover rights here on Simple English Wikipedia. I often come across pages that should be shortened to match the title on English Wikipedia. I more specifically want to do round-robin page moves. I don't have this right on the English Wikipedia because I don't often come across pages that need to be moved. My question is where is the correct place to request page mover rights for this wiki? Pings are appreciated. Interstellarity (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have 'page mover' rights. As soon as you are autoconfirmed (shouldn't be an issue when I look at the number of your edits), you can move pages (except for a few 'move-protected' ones). --Eptalon (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You are autoconfirmed, see Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users for what that means.--Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Eptalon, I think they're referring to the English Wikipedia userright "extendedmover", often called simply page mover, which permits a user to move a page without leaving a redirect. On this project, only administrators can currently do that. Vermont (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Page mover hasn't been unbundled from the admin toolset here (or on many other Wikipedias) like it has on the English Wikipedia. I'd support unbundling it, there's definitely cases (like this one, potentially) when it could be useful. Vermont (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I don't see why we couldn't do that here too. IWI (chat) 18:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Just another 'hat' for the 'hat-collecting community'...--Eptalon (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
But some people would make good use of it. Many moves I have wanted to do I have simply left because I didn't want to go through the bother of asking admins every 5 minutes. IWI (chat) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Almost no one would make good use of it. It pretty much never comes up. It would 100% be for hat collecting. Its generally why en.wiki users end up here a lot of the time. To grab hats here to make their case for them better on en.wiki or elsewhere. It gets tiring to people who have been here awhile and seen it happen over and over again. -Djsasso (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You have a point that some enwiki folk are going to try to get the right here to justify requesting the right on enwiki, but that isn't warrant to prevent people who could legitimately use it from doing so. Like what happens with rollback, if someome comes here who is hat collecting, we just decline it. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The bar should be very high. Users with a history of page moves here and at least a few months should be allowed it. New users or blatant hat collectors can be declined. IWI (chat) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The bar I would want to see set would be essentially the same as that for admin so at that point I would say why not become admin. -Djsasso (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec)You could make that argument if not having it prevented anyone from doing anything. But it doesn't. They just slap a QD tag on and a little while later they can make their move. Moves are not time sensitive. You could also make that argument if we prevented people from hat collecting here. We don't. We almost always see this wiki pile on yes in discussions without thinking about consequences. -Djsasso (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Because there has been some support for unbundling the page mover right, I am going to create a proposal to do that. I could request admin rights if I really need it, however, I don't think I've been here long enough to get the tools just yet. Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: What are round-robin page moves? Would that be switching the names of pages with each other (for example, if there are articles here like "Foo" for a book and "Foo (movie)" for the related movie, but on enwiki it's "Foo" for the movie and "Foo (book)" for the book)? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Auntof6: If you go to this page [1] on the English Wikipedia, that explains how they work. Does this answer your question? Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Such page swaps are very rare, I don't think I've needed to do them even once, and even so, suppressredirect isn't necessary to perform them, due to the ability to overwrite redirects. Just repeat the same procedure and G7 the leftover scraps. Naleksuh (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 (change conflict) @Interstellarity: Yes, thanks. I imagine you'd need to reconcile links to both pages, since the moves wouldn't do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the "pagemover" group includes these four rights.

  • suppressredirect (move a page without creating a redirect)
  • move-subpages (move a page and all its subpages in a single action)
  • move-categorypages (moves pages in the Category namespace)
  • tboverride (override the Title Blacklist)

The vote below is for these, nothing else. IWI (chat) 22:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I don't think there was any confusion. None of this should be done by a non-admin. Especially the last one. -Djsasso (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: This post is in response to me needing a page to be deleted in order to perform a move and one particular admin (not trying to name-and-shame) being stubborn about deleting it. This would require giving Page Movers the ability to delete pages, which I disagree with. I also do not think a new user group is necessary. What I might support is allowing all autoconfirmed users to suppressredirect - I don't see why it was required to create one in the first place. Can you say more on why this should be admins-only in this particular case? Naleksuh (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Because it allows editors to move a page without a redirect and then put another potentially bad article in its place with all the old incoming links now pointing to that page. While this wouldn't be as big a deal if we had a page mover right, it would definitely be a nono for just autoconfirmed users. It would also allow them to move templates to new names without redirects which could theoretically break thousands of pages all at once. Generally I am of the same opinion as Dearborn below. We are a small wiki, less flags the better. -Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Letting all autoconfirmed users not leave redirects would be dangerous. It's pretty easy to get autoconfirmed if you're a determined LTA. IWI (chat) 22:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Unbundle page mover from the administrator toolsetEdit

I think this right would make things easier for some people to move pages without having to request admin rights.

Support
  1. As proposer, Interstellarity (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2.   Support - as stated above, having to annoy admins about so many moves is a pain for people who like to move pages. IWI (chat) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  3.   Support Why not? We can always put it back if it doesn't work out. Anyone for trying this out for six months? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose
  1.   Oppose - I tend to agree with Eptalon, further up. I think it's easy enough to move a page and tag a redirect for QD if necessary. There is rarely a backlog, and this gets done promptly by the admin team. --Yottie =talk= 20:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. I myself have moved 87 pages, a good chunk of which have required the assistance of an administrator due to the target already existing. However, this would require giving page movers the ability to delete all pages (in cases where redirect overwrites are not sufficient), which is far too powerful of an ability. Overall if there were hundreds of pages being moved a day this could be useful, but it's not. Purpose of administrators is to help the wiki (although I am a large advocate of WP:DEAL per both deleting pages can easily be restored, it is best to only give it out for all deleting pages). The other use case of not leaving redirects...there's no harm in having the redirect up for a couple hours or whatever. In fact this is arguably better, as EN generally waits several *days* before deleting (intentionally, not due to backlog) Naleksuh (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Naleksuh: The "pagemover" group does not include this. It doesn't let users overwrite. IWI (chat) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    It does just not in the way you are thinking. It allows you to do a round robin move. ie. Move the page to a 3rd location then move the 1st to the 2nd. and the 3rd to the 1st because of redirect suppression. -Djsasso (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Sure, but that doesn't give the ability to actually delete a page, only move it around to circumvent it. IWI (chat) 22:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Depends on how you look at it. The old redirect is effectively gone and a page moved that perhaps shouldn't have been. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for much of what has been said already including what Eptalon has said. This so very rarely comes up that having another flag for this would actually be more trouble than the two seconds it takes for an admin to do the delete when it shows up in the QD list. Hat collecting is a huge problem here and this very much is what this would end up, even the request feels like a request to hat collect. (not that it wasn't done in good faith). We are such a small community that we should have less flags not more for the very reasons suggested to split this out. I would be surprised if we have it even happen 10 times in a year beyond a single instance of a person doing a bunch at once. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per the discussion above. Chenzw  Talk  02:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose without more data demonstrating a current bottleneck that this would solve. It does not appear a significant issue with sysops not able to care for these in a timely manner. And on a small wiki I think a simpler permission scheme is better. Desertborn (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Discuss
  • The way I see it, we only have a relatively small number of admins here. Why should their workload involve something as trivial as that, when trusted users can just not leave a redirect and save time. The hat collecting issue is true, some users are hat collectors. I don't see that as a reason to not unbundle the right. Obvious hat collectors simply shouldn't be given the right without a history of page moving. IWI (chat) 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Just to put things into perspective: Cleaning out the 'QD log', and going over the 'Requests for deletion' is among the most common things admins do. And it doen't make much difference, if you have the usual 'graffitti' to clean; or the usual graffitti plus a few old redirects. People: This project is about buliding an encyclopedia, about being able to contribute to articles, perhaps to ask oneself if a given person or concept deserves to be included. Its not about hat collecting. Its about doing work that is useful to the community.--Eptalon (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Of course it's not difficult for admins to clear these, but it does strike me as unnecessary when we could allow a few trusted users to be able to do it themselves. IWI (chat) 22:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Change in software may affect signaturesEdit

User WhatAmIDoing asked me to inform everyone that there's about to be a change in WikiMedia technology that may affect custom signatures. Anyone who has made their name extra shiny might want to check it out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah they mentioned that in a discussion on the admin noticeboard. Interesting to see. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on movement namesEdit

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language if necessary. Thank you!

There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.

Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.

Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.

Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement, --The Brand Project team, 19:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Blocked enquiryEdit

Please unblock me - I understand my mistake and it was done accidentally perhaps because I misunderstood the nai caste source.

Please unblock me earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam.Johnanderson (talkcontribs)

@Sam.Johnanderson: You're on the wrong project. This is the Simple English Wikipedia on which you're not currently blocked. You're probably trying to edit this page. I will draw your attention to our WP:ONESTRIKE rule here, however. Operator873talkconnect 13:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Big Reference Weekend 2020Edit

Hello everyone, I just want to bring to your attention the Big Reference Weekend 2020, which will run from Thursday 16 July 2020 - 11AM UTC until Tuesday 21 July 2020 - 11PM UTC. The objective of this project is to work through the backlog of articles with unsourced statement or lacking sources. The Big Weekend project was a fun way to improve articles, but has not run since 2016. I have started a discussion on the Big Weekend talk page. Feel free to join the conversation over there, and sign up to the Big Reference Weekend 2020! --Yottie =talk= 17:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hm, could be fun. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I am taking part in this. Should be good. IWI (chat) 02:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia SocialEdit

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)

Sure, sounds very fun! Would love to try such. 4pm Pacific time for me. Naleksuh (talk) 03:40, 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)

Editing news 2020 #3Edit

12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing a new wiki project! Welcome, Abstract WikipediaEdit

Sent by m:User:Elitre (WMF) 20:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC) - m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement

Manchester United articleEdit

Hello, I have spent the past four days simplifying the Manchester United F.C. article in my user space. I used the English Wikipedia article, which is a Featured Article (Very Good Article) over there. I tried to keep all of the content, hence the article is about the same size (about 2,000 bytes larger due to simplifying).

I have tried to be thorough with the simplification, but of course things can always be improved. For those familiar with readability tools (see Peterdownunder's userpage for more info), the results are as follows (scores are approximate, of course, as they are from a copy/paste of the text):

Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score (0 to 100, higher is better) Flesch-Kincaid grade level Gunning Fog index (average is 12, lower is better) Coleman-Liau index (lower is better) SMOG index (lower is better) Automated Readability Index (lower is better)
English Wikipedia Article 50.7 11.8th grade 12.2 11 10.8 11.2
Article simplified in my User space 67.8 6.9th grade 7.2 9.8 7.4 5.4

I know there are still a lot of red links, my next job will be to create these. I think the article is now better (and definitely more up to date) than the article we have on this Wiki (Manchester United F.C.). Would anyone object to the article I simplified being moved to the article space to replace the one we have now? --Yottie =talk= 17:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Creating the page WP:Contents and adding it to the sidebarEdit

I think this page should be created like the English Wikipedia has on its sidebar. We could make it simpler than what enwiki has. Also, when it comes to the most important articles WP should have, should we use the enwiki's Vital article list or meta's List of articles every Wikipedia should have? Interstellarity (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)