Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requested moves)

Template:Infobox person/WikidataEdit

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

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

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

Necessary and sufficient...Edit

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


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

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

Most viewed articlesEdit

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

I think not. The data is collected, and used to be displayed to us. For some reason the data is no longer displayed. I think it was valuable for just the reason you suggest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some way that this could be done. On en there is this weekly ranking: [2]. Naddruf (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The data is available on the Wikimedia Statistics site: [3] Chenzw  Talk  02:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. These popular articles are very strange in my opinion. Maybe these are being linked by other popular websites. Naddruf (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well the simplewiki page List of U.S. states is the third result on google here. Might have something to do with why some of these are high. --IWI (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-38Edit

16:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Smile, you're famous!Edit

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

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

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

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

Ayu Marcellia Br SitorusEdit

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

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

Can we make articles?Edit

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

A knolwedge graph is some technical tool to measure how important a piece of knowledge is. We don't use knowledge graphs; our concept is called notability: Subjects that are reported in independent media are probably notable. Note also: if there is at least a hint the subject could be notable, the article will not be quickly deleted, but the community will discuss for a week. Contrary to other Wikipedias, we judge the arrticle, and the article's subject. We don't judge the editzors who created or contributed to it. In short: try and see for yourself. --Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
If they are notable, per GNG / BIO, why not? In addition, we could possibly pass a subject notablity guideline if we want to say people who have knowledge graph can be included. If I am not wrong, they are based on wikipedia info at times, people can claim them (i.e. use blue tick instangram / facebook accounts to verify). I am not sure what is google criteria to include these, so might be paid / fishy at times but mostly people / things / organizations / shops etc nonsense that have these knowledge graph typically have wikipedia pages, and those who don't can justify one page. I am just worried about the inclusion may be a little lenient for some and paid concerns. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't support such a guideline, personally. --IWI (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think we can wait and see. En wiki, with its huge number of editors, will either use it or not, and we can follow. I think we're right to anticipate intrusion by paid PR agents into any kind of entry path to Wikipedias. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-39Edit

21:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


"Munawar khan of katlang": I don't even know what country this refers to! Any suggestions? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: this probably. A province of Pakistan. The page is unsourced, BLP concerns. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The person might be suitable for an article, but in this state Munawar khan of katlang it's better for a delete and start over, and I can't find sources of his death and quotes. Seem some content are fake? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

British Foreign OfficeEdit

As part of a series on the British Government, I've had various problems. The names of essentially the same departments have regularly changed, and their remits have changed a bit, too. We had a weak article titled "Foreign and Commonwealth Office" created by an IP. It had little content. The department's latest title is even longer and more gobbledegooky: "Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office". Good grief. I've got the view that the title should be Foreign Office or Foreign Office (UK) or something else, but short and snappy. What it covers can be expanded as usual in the article.

What we do with the old article (F&C.O.) is delete the text and redirect it to the new title. There would be various other redirects. Anyhow, I thought you should have a chance to comment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Creating two articles for the same subject should be avoided and I assume you did this by mistake. Not a massive deal in this case but try to overwrite the old article in future. It means we might end up with Wikidata pointing to a redirected page. I think we should match enwiki at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. No real reason to deviate from that; it is the current name. I would be ok with Foreign Office too, per en:WP:COMMONNAME. --IWI (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle stub errorEdit

I think there is an error with Twinkle's stub adding function. It only seems to add one line between the categories and the stub template, instead of two. Of course, one line doesn't actually create any visible space; two is needed. See a random example I came across here. --IWI (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

London UndergroundEdit

I have started a content dispute discussion here after I have disagreed with a change an anonymous editor has made. I invite some editors to share their views. --IWI (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To better illustrate: The image on the left (A) was replaced by the one on the right (B). Which of the two is preferable?--Eptalon (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, in relation to demonstrating the origin of the nickname "the Tube". --IWI (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)