Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages —    change

Nmed template proposal

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:

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

so a 'pseudoscience disclaimer'. Likely well known example is homeopathy. Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant :).

It's a pseudomedical disclaimer. BZPN (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks good. I agree to its adoption. Steven1991 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can we find a formulation that doesn't include 'pseudo-'? Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we can use "alternative medicine" instead of "pseudomedicine", but those are synonims. BZPN (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

P.S. therefore, the template could be called {{Alt-med notice}} BZPN (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: Alternative medicine and pseudomedicine are not the same. Medicine from cultures other than the one in which one lives can be considered alternative without being considered pseudo. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6, I'm a bit confused... Our article about alternative medicine on plwiki states that the terms "alternative medicine" and "pseudomedicine" are synonyms. BZPN (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Link: pl:Medycyna niekonwencjonalna. BZPN (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Exactly. I included the same thing in my template, but in a more detailed version. BZPN (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We have this page, so I don't really see why we would need this template. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Oh, it's my bad -- I didn't understand what you meant. In this case, I will Support this and remove my weak support. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

<-I'm not sure there was consensus for this (admins, feel free to confirm) but it appears the template was implemented. I will say that I disagree with this template for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia does not determine what is pseudo-science, we simply present what others have discovered.
• Editors/community would have to determine what is "pseudo" or alternative medicine versus proven medicine, and most of us are not medical doctors. By us beginning to label certain treatments as "pseudo" and others not, we are now acting in that role.
• Wikipedia's role is not to provide medical advice. Should we put a disclaimer on Hydroxychloroquine in the COVID-19 article warning readers that there is not scientific proof it works?

If the community decides to keep this template, I would ask that a member of the community update the /doc page for it with this discussion for future reference. Griff (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So, do you think we should question the existence of the Category:Alternative medicine at all, because it is not our job to judge whether it is real medicine? This is quite an absurd - all information about whether the method is alternative or real should be based on scientific sources that clearly state that the described method is non-medical (as in the example of homoeopathy - it is widely and medically recognized as alternative medicine by scientific publications). . So, the judgement belongs to scientific sources, not to the community - if reliable and well-known scientific sources write that Homeopathy is alternative medicine, then it is so, and the community should not judge it. To finally explain it to you: the template is a note that prevents the reader from confusing a medical practice with an alternative one, widely recognized on the basis of scientific sources. As for "Wikipedia's role is not to provide medical advice", I have already referred to it above. BZPN (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There are many researches with different results all over the internet. Saying something is inconsistent needs a lot more expertise than an average editor has. I think we ought to word the article in a way that the section or specific represents the source instead of tagging page as a whole. Also, not everything in a page might be inconsistent, it might have some parts which are consistent and some that are not, which makes having the tag even more confusing. I feel like this goes way beyond what normal users are capable of sorting and might just cause lot more confusion than it solves. I Oppose this tag. BRP ^ever 11:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think so, please try to prove that Homeopathy is real medicine based on serious scientific sources. The fact that research gives different results all over the Internet does not mean that they are true and reliable. Scientific publications clearly state what is pseudomedicine, and you should stick to it. In such a case, please also refer to the category I mentioned earlier - do you think it should be questioned in some way? As for the tag, you can always change it, e.g. "This article describes" to "This article may contain", it is not a big problem. BZPN (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I will also add that topics such as Quantum healing or Somatics are, without any doubt, non-medical (alternative medicine), and this is widely recognized scientifically. BZPN (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN Reading the page Quantum healing itself gives an idea of what it is. We don't need a tag with our verification to point that out. BRP ^ever 15:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What about the other issues I mentioned above? And one more thing: simplewiki is an encyclopedia, serving mainly as a base for learning English for students and people who want to learn the language. They may not fully understand the content or understand something incorrectly, and such a template attracts attention from the very beginning and encourages people to read it. This is to make Wikipedia easier for readers to use. BZPN (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we should try to be more clear with our language. We are still an encyclopedia and I am not in favor of permanent notices and tags on pages. BRP ^ever 15:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a medical doctor and I guess I have an opinion. I don't think we should have a template like this. While I believe that medical pseudoscience is dangerous on this wiki I have to be an unbiased editor. Wikipedia exists to provide a place where the planet' s knowledge can be found and read. It is not a place to get advice. Articles that provide information such as how to take a treatment are setting out advice: even if it may be the advice of most doctors. This is opinion and not NPOV knowledge. If we were to start tagging articles like this we're saying that you can't essentially trust the article. We already have the medical disclaimer and that has to be enough. If we were going to tag medical articles then we should tag none of them or all of them and simply use the tag to point to the disclaimer. Ultimately it is incumbent on the reader to confirm the varacity of the articles they read. Medical articles are no different. If we tag an article with the proposed tag we are taking a risk we shouldn't do. fr33kman 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think the medical disclaimer is enough: No matter what the disease or treatment is, in Wikipedia you can perhaps find information on the disease or condition. Since anyone can change pretty much any article, you don't have a guarantee that what is written is true or accurate. Even then: it might not apply in your case. A medical doctor goes through a long education/training (where I live: about 10 years for a specialist, perhaps 7-8 years for a generalist). So, to say that I have a description online somewhere, and based on that, they say in most cases, this condition is treated with that treatment, so I also do that treatment, without seeing a medical professional, is simply foolish. As I have seen, in most cases, there are a few different options how to treat something; a medical professional will know these, and point out the good and bad points of each treatment. So our medical disclaimer should be enough. Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How do i be a Bureaucrat?

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

Hello. Please read WP:A and WP:CRAT. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@BZPN@Eptalon User globally locked Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's right, but why are you telling us that? BZPN (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

just for your knowledge and for other's reading this? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how this affects the question itself, which was asked in this thread, but okay... Best regards, BZPN (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

okay... Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonally-themed DYK hooks?

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)

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)

Support This seems like a fun idea. I'm in favor. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then. How many seasonally-themed DYKs can we get in the week that's left? Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it about how many articles? BZPN (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There are about six hooks on the Main Page now, so there should be six seasonal hooks, thus, six articles. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I Support that. BZPN (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support Love the idea! it would look so cute! So I am in favor of this! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 08:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support A fine idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support seems like a fun idea, lets give it a shot.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that we have community consensus; who do we see to make this happen? The local sysops? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 17:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

the next possible update is on the 30th., so we need candidate hooks for that date. So go nominate hooks.. Eptalon (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Contributor 118,784 I don’t think that the sysops have anything to do with the seasonal hooks. What I am thinking is that an experienced editor could update the hooks or maybe FehuBot could be programmed to do it. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the process is semi-automatic, fehubot does the work, but people first group the hooks in a queue. Eptalon (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee yeah that makes sense. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 22:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox next/prev seasons not linking

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, –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Davey, is there any need for community or technical discussion on this issue? Just looking to see if I need to do anything here. Griff (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about this article

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)

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)

@Jayden Johnson 2314 Unrelated question but why do you have two accounts ?, Are you aware of WP:SOCK?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am highly aware @Davey2010...

And @Eptalon thanks! :) Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@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.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010 I put a reason why on your talk page ;) Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

There is nothing wrong with two accounts. It not socking. It is only against the rules if you use them to add votes in elections, consensus, RfDs and the like. I have two accounts myself. Official statement by checkuser fr33kman 23:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the time only the second acc out gets blocked in a first incident. It becomes a problem when the second accounts used to cheat. fr33kman 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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 –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Requested moves

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)

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)

@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)

I see, thank you. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's totally understandable. Thanks to both of you for your help and inputs. Keivan.f (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You could also ask an experienced edit or admin to do the move if it's possible. fr33kman 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Simplewiki. I want to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a fantastic 2025! Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to join in and also wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful 2025! May it be a joyful and productive year for all of us. BZPN (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

AWB ndash request

Hi, can somebody who knows how to use AWB replace " - " (hyphen) with " – " (en dash) in every page inside Category:Days of the year? The space before and after the hyphen/ndash is very important (otherwise it might mess up references and other correct hyphens)! Pages from January 1 to 16 were already changed manually by me, before I gave up (example of the changes I want you to make: Special:Diff/9963321). In case you wonder why I want to make this change, you can read here and here. Thank you! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This can be a task for me tomorrow evening. I will do it within the 2017 wikitext editor, because there's a find and replace function in that. The pages all appear to be quite similar to handle, so I should be able to complete it fairly quickly. --Ferien (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That'd be amazing! Thank you! I also wonder if a bot could be set up do something like that, but I am clueless when it comes to bots, got no idea how they work. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

┌──────┘
So, we talked about it in my talk page and we thought that it would be so much better to replace " - " (remember both spaces) with " – ", so that people with certain fonts can clearly see the difference. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Some kind of vandalism that needs to be removed

I found nine pages that include both "nirvana" and "happy tree friends" in their text. I'm pretty sure this is all vandalism and needs to be removed, but I don't know exactly which edits to revert, as vandalism may be added in several edits. I think the user who did this is the same one who was vandalizing VeggieTales. I would appreciate it if someone could review these pages and help to remove the vandalism. Depextual (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Investigation complete. That was a good catch, please let us know if you find any other concerning edits. Griff (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales Thank you! The only problem I see remaining is on Universal Studios#Movies. Depextual (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch, resolved. Griff (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

RedWarn

Hi! I have recently expanded my anti-vandalism activities from the English Wikipedia to this wiki. I was able to get Twinkle, but could someone guide me on how to get RedWarn? Randomdude121 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a script for it on EnWiki that you can put on your global.js ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 14:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You're correct about the presence of a script, but I'm just having trouble getting that on this wiki. Randomdude121 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What does it say when you try to put it here or does it bring up an error? ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The script installer there imports User:RedWarn/.js, which is a problem on this wiki because User:RedWarn is not even registered here. Randomdude121 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's only available on enwiki. Ternera (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think so too, we only use Twinkle here. ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, please ping me if there's a way possibly in the future. Randomdude121 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, there was a chat at W:Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet/2020/July about it being global. I can ask one of the Devs about it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randomdude121, Ternera, and Lee Vilenski: There is a user-created .js page for RedWarn now. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 03:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice to administrators and patrollers

On no-wiki we have dealth with a vandal for months. The vandal’s account has been globally banned, and we ban locally every new IP (using proxies) the vandal uses. The posts are nonsene about Norwegian stew (not stew actually, but en:Lobscouse) which the vandal sometimes refer to as God’s stew. There are mainly myself and two other no-wiki sysops that have banned the IPs, which have made the vandal target us with harassment at other wikis as well (nn-wiki, sv-wiki, da-wiki, en-wiki and here at simple-wiki).

Among other things the vandal claims to be me, the vandal claims I am a vandal, claims that I pay people to vandalize, claims that I pretend to be sysop at no-wiki (obviously doesn’t understand that CA info can’t be faked…), etc. Vandal has also added the topicon template {{Administrator}} and in writings claimed to be admin on own IP user pages here at simple-wiki.

I will not be surprised if the vandal adds a comment to this post, denying it and make new claims about me instead. That has happened on my talk page (check history for deleted content). The last three IPs (proxies) used are:

• 88.93.84.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (22 Dec., confirmed as open proxy)
• 88.93.165.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (yesterday)
• 88.93.243.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (today)

See also these two WP:VIP posts: Special:Diff/9828686 and Special:Diff/9900061, and this WP:AN post. In the latter, the user names of the other two no-wiki sysops are mentioned. They mainly deal with the vandal at no-wiki and nn-wiki, while the vandal hates me more, because I chase the vandalism cross-wiki.

Lately, the vandal (with a new proxy address) has made obstructive edits here on simple-wiki as soon as the IP gets banned at no-wiki. Modus is as follows: makes an insignificant edit (typically adds a space) to check if IP is globally banned yet, then adds "#NorwegianStew" in the beginning of random articles. Goes into an edit war when vandalism is reverted. When warned on talk page, the vandal answers in a rude manner. Some of the change summaries are harassment, either in English or Norwegian.

My advise is to avoid giving this vandal warnings, there’s simply no point having a dialogue with a cross-wiki LTA vandal like this. Just keep reverting until IP is globally banned. (Global ban requests can be made at m:Steward requests/Global.) Sysops can ofc ban locally.

On no-wiki, I hide every edit that’s made, so he can’t see his actions in the page history either.

I know of WP:AN, but couldn’t find any similar for patrollers, that’s why I made this post at the "Village pump", hoping that more patrollers see it than at WP:AN. Best regards, and happy holidays from no-wiki sysop, 1000mm (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation): @1000mm, thank you for this notice! This information is very useful in fighting this vandal. Merry Christmas! BZPN (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice, I'm sure other New Changes Patrollers will find this as helpful as I have, since identification is an important half the battle against them :).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Just keep reverting until IP is globally banned – Instead of constantly reverting, it’s better to wait and revert *after* the IP gets globally blocked. It's way more effective and saves effort. Speaking from almost 6 years as being a global rollbacker. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@XXBlackburnXx, not when IP introduces vulgarisms and other offensive content in articles. Such things are visible to all readers, so you should revert them immediately instead of waiting a few or a dozen minutes (during this time, the page can be viewed by up to several dozen readers in the case of popular topics). BZPN (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary articles

Hi! Do we have a policy anywhere on articles we have that we have pages for, but are just soft redirects to Wiktionary? I've found 13 such pages, for example; Vindicate, Format and Global. Should we have an article for these if we don't actually do any explaining internally? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Similarly anything tagged with {{dicdef}} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: What kind of policy are you wondering about? Whether we should have the pages? Whether they can/should be turned into articles? Something else? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. Whether or not we should have an article that is simply a template. Obviously if these were turned into an article, that would be fine, but I'm a bit unsure we should retain very short items such as these.

On other projects we'd usually either redirect these terms, or not create the article. I wasn't sure if there was a suitable reason for them.

It's not a problem either way, but I ran into them and thought it was a bit weird. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Lee, I also think that any articles that link to these stubby articles should be changed to soft redirects interwiki links to Wiktionary. If no one objects in the next couple of days, maybe we can team up and take care of it? Griff (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. The pages Lee mentioned ARE soft redirects to Wiktionary. At some point Auntof6 was claiming that articles should not have links to Wiktionary. What are the other choices if a non-simple term is needed, and the subject isn't substantial enough for an article? 174.160.82.127 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I had the right term in my head, it just didn't make it to my fingers. While I respect Auntof6's opinion, I have reviewed ST archives, and though Auntof6 has made their personal preference known, it does not appear that that position was ever supported by other community members. Per MOS:IWL (enWP), interwiki linking to complicated wiktionary terms is acceptable, and if our English cousins are okay with it, I think we should be even more supportive of it. Griff (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think a link to the Wiktionary in the article is more suitable than us having a soft redirected article in mainspace. I'm not sure I've seen a thing about not linking to Wiktionary, to me it's the same as any other {{ill}} link, but happy if there's been any discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: The problem with having the Wiktionary links in articles, instead of in a separate soft-redirected page, is that those links aren't likely to get replaced if we ever have an article written on the subject. I've found Wiktionary links in articles where we actually had an article that could be used instead, but I found them while I was doing something else: I wasn't looking specifically for them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales: Which pages are you referring to when you say "stubby articles"? Do you mean the pages in article space that are soft redirects to Wiktionary? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Griff (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Categorised redirects

Hello. Looking at Category:Peppa Pig characters, most of the content are redirect pages (and in my opinion, the non-redirects should be moved to Category:Peppa Pig. However, when the category loses the redirects, it becomes underpopulated. Should they be accepted? ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Please explain: why would the redirects be lost? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RCAT (and especially WP:SUBTOPICCAT), these redirects should be categorized. Personally, however, I am against categorizing redirects with virtually no value. BZPN (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is whether or not having less than three articles means we should delete a category, if it's otherwise made up of redirects. How RCAT interacts with WP:CAT#Is there a need for the new category? I suppose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee, articles should always be categorised (or re-categorised) appropriately, even if this will result in under-populated categories.

@BZPN: Are you saying that redirects should not be categorised, or only that redirects of "no value" should not be categorised?

I recommend that we add a note in WP:CAT after the phrase "There should be a minimum of three articles"[1] that says the following: For purposes of determining whether a new category should be created or an existing empty category deleted, redirects are not counted as articles. Griff (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales: I only meant redirects without much value. Those included in the above-mentioned category (Category:Peppa Pig characters) are a good example - they all lead to an already very poor section of the same article, so they basically only artificially fill the category. There are, of course, redirects that need to be categorized, and I don't mind categorizing redirects (if they have any value). Besides, I support your recommendation. BZPN (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales I also support your suggestion. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)