Open main menu

Wikipedia:Simple talk

(Redirected from Wikipedia:ST)


We do not have a page on the Katyn massacre, and we should have. Who will do it? I am going to add material to the page on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because people today do not realise how that treaty allowed Poland to be invaded and split up between Germany and the Soviet Union. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not you? If you care about creating the page, then go for it and create it! Others will eventually help and clean it up, but remember: be bold! ~Junedude433talk 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll let you answer that question yourself. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Answer: you, or no one else. I'm focused on adding articles about Kansas. If this massacre is something that interests you, then you should create it. I doubt someone else will create something that specific, and someone who cares about it as much as you should be the one to create it. Passionate people always make the best editors.~Junedude433talk 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filterEdit

Hello! I'm hoping to see if there's consensus for giving the abuse filter the ability to block accounts. I'd hope to use this specifically for anti-LTA filters, to temporarily block an IP/account of someone who triggers an applicable filter, awaiting review by a human administrator. It would make it so that LTA's no longer can keep testing filters until they get around them. I'm not sure on the procedure to enable that, however I know it requires community consensus before doing so, hence this thread. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Definite support from me. It works well on other projects, as far as I know. I'm not aware of any problems with this upgrade. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this for a while and I have come across the conclusion that we need this feature considering how LTAs keep on attacking users. I am not sure how long it will take them to get around this new feature too but I think it will be able to prevent them for some time so I support enabling this.--BRP ever 02:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Nope I would oppose this strongly. Blocking requires human decisions, even if only temporary. Not at all in favour of this. Too big a risk of false positives. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Woukd you oppose the filter blocking non-autoconfirmed editors if they added something like "wikipedohomoidiots" or similar phrases? It's not like we're shoving random word soup into a filter; it'd be used specifically for LTAs on only phrases that LTAs would add into pages and in edit summaries. I don't see where there's a possibility of false positives, and if there are (say, an editor on another wiki who isn't autoconfirmed here who gets blocked by a filter for using that term in a question about it) it can be easily and quickly rectified unlike an LTA learning a filter, but to my knowledge there has not been an instance where the filter I'm referring to (88) had a false positive. Vermont (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I would oppose blocks period. Preventing edits is one thing, but blocks I am completely against. A block log can never be cleared the user can only be unblocked. Something I don't think you have fully grasped is that the more you try to push against LTAs the more they actually disrupt. They typically left this wiki alone after a tiny handful of edits until you went on a crusade against them. (Which is a fine thing to have tried to do. I just think it is the cause of most of the disruption currently. It is why RBI is a thing. The more you mention or go after the LTA the more attention they get so the more they do it. Just like a kid behaving badly.) Blocking will just cause them to find another avenue and it isn't worth the chance of false positives just to push them to another mode of disruption. And 88 may be fine, but once you have done it for one filter you have opened it up to using it for other filters. It is a slippery slope that simply isn't worth it. Just RBI their edits. Stop commenting about them, stop keeping lists, just RBI. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to estimate how many users would get blocked on average (per some time period) if this is done? It would be nice to know the estimated impact before I comment. Desertborn (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It depends on what filters are activated, although the one I mentioned above has had 191 hits since late August, most of which were in the last three weeks as I've updated it a bit. As far as I can tell, there have yet to be any false positives on it. Vermont (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Given the number of hits for that filter, and with zero false positives to date, I suppose the risk is low. On the other hand, the lowish number over several months means the value in automation over waiting for an admin is not huge, in terms of time. Also I am sure some will still find a way around the filters as well. But given that other languages seem to do this, as noted by Antandrus, there is precedent. Thus I offer weak support at this time. If started, it may be good to do a test run for a few weeks, and then re-evaluate before making it permanent. Desertborn (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Page protectionEdit

Hi all, Considering the events of the last few days, I would like this page protected due to constant LTA. Thanks. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages don't get protected. -DJSasso (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources not in EnglishEdit

Do we have guidance for new page patrollers on articles with sources that we cannot read in scripts which are unfamiliar. Take the sources out? They are very un-user-friendly, and meaningless. It's not that I doubt the data or statements, it's rather that as a matter of principle readers ought to be able to read what sources say. See Uygur people. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You definitely don't take them out. Sources are allowed to be in any language. In fact for many subjects they have to be in other languages. To require English sources would be a systemic bias that would be against Wikipedia's principles. The vast majority of sources can be translated if you use Chrome and click translate page. (granted the translation isn't perfect) -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Djsasso. There are many pages that it would be difficult to find an English language source. To rely on that would further bias. Improving the encyclopedia may at times require consulting a source not in English. Per WP:FOLLOW it is useful to consult en:WP:NONENG. "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed...As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." I for one have used non-English sources in several pages, simply because there is no English source available. Better to have a reliable source that some can verify than none at all. Desertborn (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Good, we have guidance. However, there is a big difference between what the text says and what some of the sources say... Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2019Edit

Please help translate to your language

Wikipedia Asian Month is back! We wish you all the best of luck for the contest. The basic guidelines of the contest can be found on your local page of Wikipedia Asian Month. For more information, refer to our Meta page for organizers.

Looking forward to meet the next ambassadors for Wikipedia Asian Month 2019!

For additional support for organizing offline event, contact our international team on wiki or on email. We would appreciate the translation of this message in the local language by volunteer translators. Thank you!

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So, is the Simple English Wiki participating in this? I didn't see it listed on the list of wikis. ~Junedude433talk 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Junedude433: I mentioned this once to see if someone is interested but got no response so I didn't add us to the list.--BRP ever 06:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and created 4 Japanese articles, so I'll participate.~Junedude433talk 17:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Junedude433: Apparently we aren't participating this year, but feel free to create articles anyway! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not too late to add us to the list. We're not even a full week into November.~Junedude433talk 19:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
But we don't have coordinators. We'd need a coordinator, or two coordinators if any coordinator is also contributing. I did it the last two years, but I can't this year. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any humorous essays or stuff like that?Edit

If we don't, can we make some? --Derpdart56 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm more focused on bringing other articles up to snuff before I do anything else. ~Junedude433talk 22:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
i've wanted to make a page on wikipedia with micro-purchases, but i get a more satirical vibe from this. i'll be excited to read your essay :) Computer Fizz (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be much more helpful if you put your energy toward improving the main content (articles). Doing this kind of thing isn't really needed here, but would be better accepted if you had a track record of creating and/or improving articles (other than reverting vandalism, which I see you've done a lot of). --Auntof6 (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I disagree with that, I think reverting vandalism is a very important part to the encyclopedia, possibly more so than adding new information since the issue is becoming dated vs. completely unusable. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that reverting vandalism isn't important. We certainly have needed it a lot. I was saying that if someone is going to put time into writing, it would be more valuable in articles than in essays. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: Go for it. I think the message should be "Wikipedia won't ever charge you, cuz' it's non profit." I was thinking more like What Wikipedia is not/outtakes on en wiki, except simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derpdart56 (talkcontribs)

A questionEdit

Say if someone got rollback like 2 weeks ago. If they wanted to apply for admin, how long should they wait for? I was wondering.--Derpdart56 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Candidates for administrator typically have at least 3 to 6 months of experience on this wiki. Just anti-vandalism work alone will not suffice, though; candidates are expected to demonstrate good understanding of policy, which is typically shown through participation in community processes. Just to clarify, there is no "advancement path" from rollbacker to administrator. Chenzw  Talk  23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
As Chenzw mentiones is at a minimum 3-6 months. But others such as myself like to see over a year. And there is more than just vandalism fighting that is required. A candidate has to have a full grasp of how things work on the wiki and should create articles which show they understand what simple writing looks like. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Can a page be protected pleaseEdit

This page has been vandalized, can it be semi-protected for like a week--Derpdart56 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Only one IP has vandalised the page recently, the more appropriate action is to block the anonymous editor instead. Chenzw  Talk  16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Idea: WelcomeBotEdit

it's a bot that welcomes new users automatically. I think there hasn't been a solid team of greeters. Or give it to Cheznwbot, along with the QD upgrade. It could use very similar to Twinkle.--Derpdart56 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This has been brought up quite a number of times over the years, and the consensus has been that welcoming new editors should be a task left to humans. Would you really want to be welcomed by a bot? Chenzw  Talk  16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 (change conflict) This has been discussed a number of times. (Do a search in the archives of this page) and it has been pretty much unanimously rejected as it is not a personal message and to many people it feels like spam. So instead we prefer editors to welcome people manually. Ideally with their own message rather than a template but the most important thing is that its done manually. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I also prefer a person doing the welcome, for all the points noted above. Desertborn (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We also don't want users automatically welcomed, even by a human. New users should be welcomed only after we see that they are making constructive edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


I don't know if this is this right place, so sorry if it isn't. I recently made an edit to simple wiki's page on lung cancer, I removed an obsolete source and replaced it with a current one and updated some statistics, but the changes got reverted for spam. I was wondering if someone could explain how that constitutes as spam? --12Dan21 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

12Dan21, this is the right place. Masumrezarock100 should not have reverted that edit. It is not spam, and I have put the article back to your edit. Thank you for updating the content. I'm going to leave a template on your talk page with some helpful links to help you feel more comfortable editing here. If you have any questions or need help you can ask here, on my talk page, or the talk pages of other experienced editors and administrators. Happy editing, Vermont (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Vermont Thank you!--12Dan21 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont, 12Dan21: I apologise for reverting the edit. I am still new to this. Sorry again. Masumrezarock100 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
No issue; just please try to be more careful in the future and WP:AGF. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masumrezarock100: all good --12Dan21 (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Can a sysop import the following?

en:Template:S-line/SMRT left/Thomson-East Coast
en:Template:S-line/SMRT right/Thomson-East Coast
en:Template:S-line/SMRT left/Cross Island
en:Template:S-line/SMRT right/Cross Island
en:Template:S-line/SMRT left/Circle
en:Module:Adjacent stations (together with its connected pages)

I plan to expand some articles and simple's templates are outdated. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I can do it. You can update them as well with attribution comments in the future if you choose as well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Page ideaEdit

Could we get a simplified version of the policy on COI edits on en-wiki? It could be a good idea. --Derpdart56 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Using the term movie instead of film -- when/where was this decided?Edit

A user is asking about our practice of using the term movie instead of film. Specifically, he wants to know if this was discussed, and where he can see the discussion. It was before my time here, so I don't know. Can anyone help? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, I would say in my opinion "movie" is simpler. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Derpdart56: Thanks, but if you don't know, then you can't help here. I'm not looking for opinions. I'm looking for documentation. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I did some digging, and found this archive, where some users debated about this. A consensus was reached, saying film is more standard due to WP:MOS. But, the MoS says movie is standard, so go with that. Hope that helps. --Derpdart56 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I am that user and feel quite strongly that the simple term 'film' (the term used in the UK and beyond) should be allowed for british films alonside the term 'movie' for US movies. There are lots of examples where banning the word 'film' would make an article more confusing. Film noir comes to mind. The rules I am used to on the complex english wikipedia is that it is important to be consistent on a page. For example if a page is in 'American English' you would expect 'color' and' 'movie. If the page is in British or Autralian or Indian English you would expect 'colour' and 'film'. I fail to see why 'film' is considered a 'complex' word (unless one is American). Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brian R Hunter: Technically, both are right. It's confusing, MoS says movie, Archives say film. Use both. If needed, use redirects. I'm not saying that either should be banned. --Derpdart56 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, we don't completely ban the word film. We just use movie when talking about a motion picture. In the US, we also use the term film, so it's not just a case of different versions of English. In any case, this section is not a discussion of what should be used, just a request for information about where we decided to use one term instead of another. I'm changing the title to make that clear. Feel free to start a discussion about changing our practice, however. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
It has been decided on this page multiple times just look through the archives. But really the decision more comes down to the fact that one of our core principles is to always use the word with less meanings. Movies vs. Films isn't unique. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Film is a complex word because it has multiple meanings. We avoid words with multiple meanings when there are options with less meanings. While we do follow some of ENGVAR here on simple wiki such as color vs colour. We don't slave to it like does. We use the simpler of the two words. To you as a native English speaker film might seem easy to understand. But that is not so for our target audience of non-english speakers. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Film or Movie or both - a new debateEdit

I have recently joined 'simple.wikipedia' having been a long term editor on the en.wikipdeia. I like using simple English and have striven for easy-to-read content on articles I have edited. I have been moving pages over to this wikipedia, simplyfying as much as possible. One issue that has impacted me has been a perceived need to change all mention of the word 'film' to 'movie' on any page that mentions a motion picture.

My view is that both terms should be acceptable on simple.wikipedia. The choice depending on context. Movies in Britain are almost always refered to as 'films', and it is common in other countries too. There is no confusion with other meanings of the word 'film' due to the context. In Britain there are 'film awards' given to 'films'; it seems very odd to have a rule that says the wikipedia page should refer to these as 'movies' rather than films.

My proposed 'rules':

  • Film is a simple word.
  • Movie is a simple word.
  • If due to context, a reader might be confused over the meaning of the word 'film' then the word 'movie' should be used instead.
  • If an article is about a British film, the word 'film' should be consistently used and the page use UK English spellings.
  • If an article is about a US movie, the word 'movie' should be consistently used and the page use US English spellings.
  • Articles should not mix use of the words unless the page is describing the two uses.
  • US awards are for 'movies', even when it is a British film.
  • UK awards are for 'films', even when it is an US movie.

Please feel free to disagree. I would like this debate to result in a clearly visible enforceable policy rule. Brian R Hunter (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose These rules are too complex in and of themselves. I think you have probably misunderstood a lot of why we do what we do. Simple doesn't just mean simple to English speaking readers. We are writing for non-native English speakers. We are less concerned here about English variations than we are about using the simplest word. One we always use the word with less meanings, this doesn't just go for movies or films, this is in every instance of every word. It is one of the core tenants of Simple English. Secondly in other languages the word movie is closer to what is used in other languages than film is, making it simpler for people learning English to understand than film. Film is very ambiguous and we can't expect non-native speakers to always understand the context of the word being used. And a lesser reason is that movie is often simpler for children to understand than film, and children are our secondary audience to non-native speakers. This topic seems to get discussed every time a new editor comes here that wants to try to impose style guidelines to our wiki. Just go through the archives this has been talked about a lot. Using film in some places and movies in other places is the definition of not simple. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The logic of your arguement would lead onto a standardised spelling too. It is simpler to have a single spelling than multiple spellings (color colour etc.) of the same word. Is this policy on simple.wikipedia? -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
No we haven't standardized on a single spelling because there would be no end of arguments for that, consensus would never be achieved. There would always be new editors showing up and changing words to their preferred version and we don't have the editor numbers to keep up with preventing that. (we have around 20 active regular editors) So we focus more on simpleness of words which is easier to enforce. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • According to Wiktionary, film has several other meanings (originally: a thin layer of material); movie as form moving picture only has one meaning. You are free to use film, if you think you must; but when talking about the stuff you watch at the cinema (hopefully), then other editors may eventually replace the term by movie. Practicality is what counts here, not linguistic purism; Our audience is those learning English, and those having problems with the complexities of the regular English wikipedia. Yes, inflammable means catches fire easily; yet, emergency services talk about flammable substances (to not confuse people). Are we evil, when we try to do the same? --Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose based on this reasoning. There are fewer definitions for "movie" than there are "film." There could be more potential for confusion. I don't think this is a big issue regardless though.~Junedude433talk 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Film" is the standard word in British English for what American English calls a movie. There's no doubt about that, and it is not ambiguous. Context in language determines meaning: many words do have more than one possible meaning. The word 'movie' sticks out like a sore thumb in a page which is otherwise in British English. We should "go with En wiki" as we do in many other debates. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I was looking through

I was searching through the LTA list on Apparently, a known vandal used the madeup word "eolgi" to vandalize. --Derpdart56 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Introducing: Wikiproject: Video Game HardwareEdit

I noticed a lot of articles are missing about video game hardware! Let's fix this! I aim to increase the quality of these articles and create new ones. I hope you guys join me! Page here. --Derpdart56 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Dude, how many projects have you even made so far? Computer Fizz (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, it is not necessary to create a project for everything you want to work on. WikiProjects here have a poor track record. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia's been seeing some drama hasn't itEdit

--DimensionShifter (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but to saome extent, thats normal, and nothing to worry about. Most of us are here for the content, and not for the drama...--Eptalon (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

QD criteria update maybe?Edit

I think A4 should be moved to the general section. This could be used for user pages that are too niche for G11, but don't fit a specific guideline. --Derpdart56 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A4 is about notability. Notability only applies to articles so wouldn't make sense to be in general as general applies to all namespaces. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I do think we should overhaul our QD criteria sometime, but i don't know abotu this specific thing (i.e. why would a userpage have to be 'notable' ? ) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)