Bad pages appearing in Google Search resultsEdit

I have been recently monitoring new pages, and was surprised when I did a search for "Landon Pickett" on Google (to see if the personal is real and notable for an article on Wikipedia, which is false for both cases), the newly created page appeared near the top of the search results with the vandal's text cleanly visible. I did this for several others I tagged for deletion, such as "National predator of Pakistan", and I was shocked to see text from the QD template actually show up on the results page. Google even displays results for recently deleted articles and those tagged for deletion as well, as can be seen via a search for "has asked for quick deletion of this article". Could anyone please explain why this is happening? I think Google's web crawler needs to be more careful when picking out newly created articles on Wikipedia to avoid tricking others into believing all is correct. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not totally sure, however if it is something on Google's end, I wouldn't think there is much we could do on our end. I think it's more likely these bad/false pages show up simply because there isn't much else out there on those "topics". If somebody creates a wikipedia page with a gibberish title, and then you google that gibberish title, chances are Wikipedia will be the only result you get, until the page is recognized as deleted. Similarly, if you create a page about your random neighbor down the street, the Wikipedia page may be the only thing about them online, so it will show first.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reflecting Wikipedia movesEdit

  1. English Wikipedia has made the page en:Neural network (NN) into a redirect to en:Artificial neural network (ANN). The page simple:Neural network states in its topic sentence that it considers them synonyms. However, the Wikidata-powered Interlanguage Links on Wikipedia leave the ANN article without a link to Simple.
  • The redirect on En wiki is a mistake, I think. The general term should be a disambig to Artificial neural network and Biological neural network. Here I have moved our Neural network to Artificial neural network on the grounds of its content. And without a redirect, because I expect in good time the general term to be a disambig here also. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  1. The documentation at simple:Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#How_to_rename_a_page needs to be corrected, as users don't have access to Move.
Hobart (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Users do have access to move unless they are brand new. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

FlowEdit

I see that the simple English Wikipedia is using the Flow extension. However, the Special:EnableFlow page seems to be restricted to Flow bots. Why is this? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello? I posted this almost two weeks ago and it has gone unanswered ever since. Can someone please respond and give some insight? Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy processEdit

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Hi, I'm back after who knows how many months?Edit

Yep, it's me! Also leave some welcome back cookies please. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 00:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProjectsEdit

Hello, I was looking at WP:RULES to find out how to notify editors about articles with red links, and I noticed the WikiProjects page is itself a red link. Can someone tell me how to make a small project? I am thinking about the lists at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, only much smaller. There must be people who want to edit something. How do you connect them with topics? Auntof6? Peterdownunder? —Neotarf (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neotarf: WikiProjects here are unofficial. They are managed completely in userspace. Just start a page in your userspace and put whatever you need there. Then you can announce it and give updates at Simple talk. You can put that page in Category:WikiProjects. In fact, you can look at other pages there to see 1) examples of how others have been done and 2) whether there is already a WikiProject for the topic you have in mind. A few note about WikiProjects here:
  • We do not use categories for individual WikiProjects. There is Category:WikiProjects for the project pages and Category:WikiProject user templates for WikiProject userbox templates.
  • We do not use categories for WikiProject participants. Participants can be listed on individual project pages.
  • We do not use WikiProject banners on article talk pages.
Feel free to ask if you have other questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that's great, and very...simple. Thanks. —Neotarf (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

request for page moveEdit

Hallo, could someone please move the page "Innsbruck Medical University" to "Medical University of Innsbruck"? The reason for my request is that that particular school of medicine calls itself "Medical University of Innsbruck" on its own website www.i-med.ac.at and that i myself don't have a sufficient number of edits on this Wikipedia in order to be entitled to move articles myself. --K1812 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

All done. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --K1812 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

IPs creating pagesEdit

Why are IPs allowed to create (non-talk) pages here when they can't on Wikipedia? You guys here do realise that probably nine out of every ten IP page creations meet one of the QD criteria? J991 17:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

By "on Wikipedia", I assume you mean "on English Wikipedia"? :) You raise a valid question. It's a local decision, I think. We could decide to do the same thing. Maybe the reason we haven't is that we need all the contributors we can get. If you want to try to show that it's a net negative, feel free. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6 Yes, I did mean the English Wikipedia. The problem I have with IP page creation is that it requires admin attention every time a bad page is created. Anyone can revert if an article is vandalized, but only admins can delete the many bad pages that are routinely created, mainly by unregistered editors. And if there's no admins online, the backlog can pile up. Also, I think we'd have less vandalism/vandals overall if you had to log in to create pages, although it's likely that vandals would attack more existing articles instead. J991 19:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't think that this is technically possible without WMF intervention due to global CentralAuth, but what if this community could create an independent user group and new userright for "moderator" or "semi-admin" or anything like that? This group and userright could allow members of that group to delete pages solely created by unregistered users. Since most anon pages are vandalism, it could be useful, and it would prevent a backlog without giving too many users full admin rights. As noted above, I don't think it's technically possible because the configuration of all WMF projects are linked globally via CentralAuth, but it's a thought, at least. I would   Oppose revoking page creations from anons because I think that they can be constructive when and if they want to be. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 19:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I would oppose preventing IP page creations outright, for the reason that Auntof6 noted above.
I'm not sure you can create a right that would only allow people to delete pages created by anons, and almost certainly you can't create a right that would only allow people to delete pages created by anons and never edited by users with accounts. The only way to do something like this, I think, would be to create a page deleter right, limit it severely, and assume the people you give it to will follow a rule that says "only delete if it's an IP-created spam page". And at that, (a) it's only worthwhile if the sysops think they need more help with this, and (b) if you're going to do that, you may as well give those people at least enough latitude to delete pages created by single-purpose/vandalism-only/brand-new accounts, too. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
For the record, two pages created by unregistered users that were valid. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 20:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not even sure the first one passes the "simple" test. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The first is a straight unsimplified copy from En wiki minus the sources. The number of clearly good new pages by IPs is about one in fifty. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
We made the decision to allow it here because with less than 20 regular contributors we find the good done by IPs outweighs the bad when it comes to page creation. Would definitely be very against restricting it here. We have very different needs than en.wiki due to size. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that we are in the need of more admins. With so many of them on enwiki, we could find some of them to come here so that there is always an admin on standby to deal with any emergencies. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
what kind of "emergencies" do you see us having here on Simple that can't be handled by admins here? It's Wikipedia. I struggle to find any thing that would be an emergency. Only (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Only a few days ago, I was fighting this IP user who kept undoing my edits and restoring the vandalism I removed. I reported the user to VIP at 21:31 UTC but an admin wasn't on to block the user for another 45 minutes, during which the vandal's activity continued to the extent that I even made a report to VIP @ enwiki at 21:45, and within minutes a response came from an admin who said he had no rights to block users on simplewiki. Had he happened to be a global-sysop the vandal would have already been blocked. Clearly a sign that admins are more active on enwiki than simplewiki and we could have some of them on simplewiki as well. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
annoying? Sure. Emergency? Far from it. I mean to refer to reverting as "counter attacks" and sending an "SOS" suggests that maybe you're taking things a little too seriously when addressing vandalism. The phrase we use is "don't feed the troll" and if a vandal knows he's really bothering you, then you're just adding fuel to it. Only (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone always mentions this, there is pretty much never an emergency. And if there ever was one a steward can come and take care of it. If anything we are finally getting back down to a more reasonable amount of admins for the size of our wiki. Still a bit high, but reasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And no matter how many admins we have, there will always be times when none of them are around. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on categorizing Category:LGBTEdit

There is a discussion at Category talk:LGBT about whether to categorize the LGBT category under Category:Paraphilias. Please give your input. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Profane languageEdit

I've noticed that many anonymous editors not only create inappropriate pages, but they also insert profane language into existing articles, or worse, replace an entire article with this language. I see that there is a private abuse filter targeting such "attacks", but it seems that it either hasn't been working and/or anons have figured out one or more ways to bypass it. I can't view the filter because I'm not an admin, and therefore I can't propose any specific changes to the conditions, but I just wanted thoughts from others on this. Agrave Banks --- (talk - contribs - email) 17:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Admins can (and should) make obscene titles, edits and usernames not visible by the general user. Likewise libelous personal attacks, and anything else they think is extremely damaging to the wiki. In practice the sheer volume of bad new pages and vandalism often gets ahead of its correction. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually most swears don't meet the requirements of revdel. The requirement is grossly degrading, your typical swear does not meet that as the standard is "This does not include mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" rudeness, personal attacks or conduct accusations." RevDel is supposed to be used sparingly. Someone on en.wiki once summed it up pretty well when they said if it can't be Oversighted it can't be RevDeled. Its not 100% true but pretty accurate. I as an oversighter can't OS swears unless they are libel, so they shouldn't be RevDeled either. I understand that some might think swears are purely disruptive and you could definitely make that argument, but I think we have a higher threshold than just the odd swear word as seen by the definition of the purely disruptive reason on the revdel page "This includes grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that attack or threaten some person or thing and are not otherwise useful, but not normal spam links." Once something is reverted it is unlikely ever to be see by anyone again anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Liable? Do you mean libel? Also, thanks for this explanation. It's good for us to be reminded that we have policies/guidelines on this sort of thing other than "it seems like a good thing to do". --Auntof6 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah totally botched that typing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Two new WikiProjectsEdit

If someone is looking for articles to create, there are two new lists of red links that do not have an article in any language. That means the article you create will probably be on the first page of a google search. They even have userboxes.

 
This user is a member of WikiProject Courage in Journalism.
 
 
This user is a member of the
Wikiproject: Medal of Honor.

The Medal of Honor red link project is the easiest. There are already sources for the articles, and the notability of the recipients has just been confirmed in a recent AFD discussion, so you should not have to deal with notability issues, just make the article. There are also similar articles to look at if you have any question about format.

The Courage in Journalism project is a little more difficult. If you like to make articles about underrepresented groups, this may be for you, since these are all women journalists, and many from unusual places in the world. Everyone on the list has received an award, so they should be notable, but you will have to look for sources. —Neotarf (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Neotarf: Good luck with your new WikiProjects. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask that people creating articles for these projects be sure to include appropriate categories. Many of the articles will be biographical; these articles should have categories for:
  • The year the person was born
  • The year the person died (or Category:Living people if the person is still alive)
  • The award itself, if such a category exists
  • The person's nationality, or the specific place they are from
  • Anything else of interest about the person: that could be their profession, other accomplishments, etc.
Note that some of these could be combined, as in Category:American military people, which combines nationality and profession.
In addition to categories, most biographical articles need a DEFAULTSORT. If you're not familiar with that, see Wikipedia:Categories#Sorting of people, or ask me and I'll be glad to explain it. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not meant so much as a primer for how to write articles but as a resource for people who already know how and are looking for specific knowledge gaps to fill in. But I do think it might be a good place for people with some editing or patrolling skill to bridge into writing articles. I'll take a look and think about it a bit, maybe needs a separate essay about how to write an article, there are specialized cats for the project at the bottom of the page. —Neotarf (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)