Open main menu


Can't move pageEdit

I wanted to move two pages to reflect the current titles on en.Wikipedia. The first article is Civil rights movement to Civil rights movements. The second is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968) to Civil rights movement. I don't have the "'Move Page" tab displayed as Help:Moving a page describes. Mitchumch (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It is because you are not autoconfirmed yet. Basically you haven't edited long enough here. But be aware we don't necessarily match article titles with, however, that isn't a comment on whether this move should or should not be done. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
How should I proceed to move the page? Mitchumch (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
By waiting until you are autoconfirmed. However, since it was pointed out that articles here don't necessarily have the same title as those on enwiki, can you explain why you want to rename these? If you don't have another reason, then it's probably best to leave them with the names they have. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The names are identical to the ones that were on en.Wikipedia when those articles were created on Simple Wikipedia. The reasons why the en.Wikipedia articles had their titles changed are equally valid on Simple Wikipedia. From my observations, the content on both articles on Simple Wikipedia seem to mirror en.Wikipedia. What is the argument for not changing them? Mitchumch (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Well there is an argument to be made that being more specific on simple.wikipedia is simpler and that the only disambiguator between the two being an "s" is not simple. Remember this wiki has a mandate to be simple where does not. But I have no strong opinions either way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Where are the guidelines that simple.wikipedia follows for "common name" and "reliable sources"? Mitchumch (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Djsasso or Auntof6 Is anyone available to answer my question? Mitchumch (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
For common name, en:WP:COMMONNAME might be what you're looking for. (That is a policy on English Wikipedia, but we refer to their policies and guidelines when we don't have our own.) For reliable sources, see WP:RS.
That being said, we also need to keep a global point of view. The term "Civil rights movement" doesn't specifically point to either the United States or African-American issues. I asked why you wanted to rename these, and your response was to match the enwiki names because their reasons for renaming are valid here. However, you haven't said what those reasons were.--Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Should this "page move" conversation be held here or on one of the two talk pages for the articles in question? Mitchumch (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an answer. Mitchumch (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I think Auntof6 is waiting for her answer as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Candace OwensEdit

I looked up Candace Owens on Wikipedia just to find out if she is married. What I read was a left-wing political slam on her. The article says that it is locked to prevent "vandalism." Wikipedia is usually balanced. I've been a donor for a couple of years for that reason. Please delete that article and start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickistanton (talkcontribs) 05:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vickistanton: I think you are on the wrong Wikipedia. It doesn't look like we ever had an article on Candace Owens here on Simple English Wikipedia. There is one on the regular English Wikipedia. That article is only semiprotected, so you should be able to edit it yourself if you are autoconfirmed there. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Drugbox vs. Template:Infobox drugEdit

These two templates here serve the same function. No articles use Template:Infobox drug; they all seem to use Template:Drugbox. The two templates don't appear completely interchangeable, though: Infobox drug uses Template:Infobox, whereas Drugbox does not. I tried using Infobox drug in place of Drugbox in a couple of pages, and there was an error (although it only shows while in edit, not in a saved article).

On enwiki, en:Template:Drugbox is a redirect to en:Template:Infobox drug, which uses en:Template:Infobox.

In Wikidata, our Drugbox template is linked to enwiki's Infobox drug.

We don't need two templates that do the same thing. We could redirect one to the other, but which one? I usually favor using Template:Infobox for our infoboxes, but I don't know if that's really better. Your thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Both are fairly technical but I'd support using Infobox drug - whichever the readers can understand easier I'd support using. Hiàn (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This is my bad. I forgot to redirect the old one when I brought over the new one. If you see errors let me know. Usually that is just deprecated parameters that get cleaned up over time. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Went through and made sure they were all compatible now. Nothing more needs to be done really. But to answer your question, we should almost always use the same as because inevitably that is where most people grab and paste infoboxes from. Unless there is some really good reason to use something different, but I haven't really found one yet. Infoboxes other than some wording choices are the epitome of simple since they are basically straight facts. It's why I have been trying to clean up our infoboxes, the vast majority of them were broken as people bring over one template but don't bring over the ones that it relies on etc. There will likely be errors from doing this but those are the price to pay for keeping up to date so things don't get impossible to fix in the future and its usually easy to fix those small errors. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User pages guidelinesEdit

The recent discussions about the proper use of user pages, see Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/User:Tris T7, shows that we need to have clear and concise guidelines for such pages. Comments please.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Could we have this discussion at Wikipedia talk:User page, so that the record of it stays attached to the relevant guideline? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
We should indeed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I think we already have such a guideline. I think the people at the discussion either didn't read it or were operating on an "I don't like it" argument. To boil it down to a simple sentence. Anything that has to do with building a wiki is eligible to be on a user page. We are very accepting about pretty much anything on userpages as long as they relate to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Except that we also allow some personal info. I think the issue here is that we've seen some recent user pages where the personal info seemed promotional or excessive (users using their user page as a web host or social media). In any case, I repeat: let's have this discussion on the guideline's talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the personal information is supposed to relate the purpose of building as well. We also already have guidelines for webhost stuff. And personally I prefer discussions here so they get seen by the most eyes. This page has a searchable archive for a reason. But whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
For this case, if they are an active user, I don't think the gallery is excessive. However, my point here and as stated in the RFD is that they are not an active user, but they are elsewhere, why not host the files at the wiki they are more active in / active in. I note that the gallery causes Commons Delinker bot to remove files and flooding RC at one time that it has to be twice giving the bot flag. Admin time was spent, RC watchers may miss a vandal when the bot was flooding. Basically this isn't contributing to the cause of this version of wikipedia. As long as the Userpage doesn't waste volunteer time as well as not negatively contribute to the encyclopedia, why not? As for venue, this whole conversation can be moved to the talkpage when it's concluded. My 2 cents. --Cohaf (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Flooding the RC is not as big a deal as some would make it out to be as you can easily filter out the delinker bot and see all the other edits. There is zero benefit to scaring away a potential new editor by deleting their userpage. Perhaps they intended to become active here and were instead scared away by this. AGF comes into play here, there is a very large leeway on what can be on a userpage and this easily fell within it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about this particular case, see the SUL of that user Special:CentralAuth/Tris_T7. Clearly they can put this gallery somewhere else (they have so many edits and so many projects they are active in). Why can't they host it somewhere else, one guess is that all the other projects they are heavily involved in may not allow them to do so. For such cases, by deleting their userpage we won't scare of them but rather prevent this site to be a dump / host for other projects. Their local contribution are just to the userpage + the rest is to the AFD. This is borderline disruptive in my opinion (as that page now had expanded to a size that I had problem loading it). On the other hand, if it is a very new editor doing this, I will be very concerned are they really wanting or able to build the encyclopedia. For these editors, I will play some AGF. I recommending talking to them and asking them, offering rope and teaching them editing (or even vandal fighting - although I personally don't like the fact for very new editors to be just into vandal fighting). If despite all these efforts, they still continue to build up nothing but a huge gallery of images, we will need to consider whether they are building an encyclopedia. This should be differentiated to a regular editor such as someone who regularly edits, yes, no issues then. I wish to note that the commonsdelinker as well as the rest of the edits took up valuable sever capacity (although deleted edits also), but to stop it in time prevent more sever space being taken and severs are all paid out of donor monies. We have to put good use what WMF given to us. I hope this clarifies Djsasso. --Cohaf (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I realize you were, I was sort of pointing out that this editor was a new editor here and quite possibly was looking to become a regular editor here. But I would point out that deleting the page isn't going to save any server space as deleting it only stops it from being visible and doesn't actually delete it. Server space should never be a consideration in deleting, its why we have WP:NOTPAPER. The cost of storage is negligible in the quantities they use. There is no difference between regular and non-regular users, if its a valid use (which in this case it most definitely was) then the user page can't be deleted. Even if they were gone for a long time. We don't have classes of editors. And we support all the different wikimedia projects, we are all under the same umbrella, simple isn't a special club that if you don't regularly edit you don't get all the privileges of. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that we agree to disagree in this area. I don't have much more to say but I took your points, and they are valid too and relevant also. The key here is valid use of userpage and if it's the community feels this is ok, I'm fine as Wikipedia operates on consensus. --Cohaf (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Page moveEdit

Can an admin please move World Trade Center (1973-2001) to World Trade Center (1973–2001) for grammatical reasons. IWI (chat) 11:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso:World Trade Center (1973-2001) now can be deleted as nothing links there and it's a sort of typo? --Cohaf (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually its a perfect example of when you should have a redirect. The difference between a hyphen and an endash is a very common typo. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
What actually I meant is that very seldom will people search World Trade Center (1997-2001) in full, if it's like W-T vs W–T it's plausible as the common typo is in front. --Cohaf (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
You never know. Redirects are cheap so we might as well leave it. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sort of figured out redirects are cheap after typing, so yep, leave it is best. Sorry for the fuss. --Cohaf (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah was about to point out en:Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap but I got pulled away. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Enwiki linkEdit

Is it just me who finds it impossible to get from an enwiki page to the Simple English version via the bar on the left? If not, is there a reason for this? IWI (chat) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It might just be you, I don't have a problem with it at all. That being said I also wrote a script to make it even easier, but it doesn't work when our title is different than theirs. -DJSasso (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
So what would be causing it? (Also, can you block the latest personal attacker visible on new changes, it’s an ongoing thing.) IWI (chat) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
You did it I can see. IWI (chat) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Well you will have to explain what is hard about it for you? I click the link and it takes me there. Not sure where the hard part is. Perhaps more detail is needed. -DJSasso (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The link simply isn’t there. IWI (chat) 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If its not there for a given page it usually means doesn't have the page or the article is so new that it has never been linked on wikidata yet. If it is just that it is not linked yet then you can click the change links link and do so. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my wording, I meant getting to simple from enwiki. IWI (chat) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Would be the same situation in reverse. However the list is alphabetical so we are usually below the "expand" line so you probably have to expand to see all the links. We start with an S so are down low on their list whereas they are an E so are up high on ours. -DJSasso (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s not in the expand either, even when there are only a few languages linked. IWI (chat) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Then as I said we don't have the article or it is not linked yet. -DJSasso (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a widespread issue, even when I know there is an article on simple, the latest example that prompted me here being the Momo Challenge hoax (corresponds to en:Momo Challenge hoax. IWI (chat) 21:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It is there 4th from the bottom. -DJSasso (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
They didn't include us in the new "Languages" section on the sidebar. See phabricator:T210840. It's been tagged as high priority for about two and a half months now. Vermont (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Yes but on en:Momo Challenge hoax, Simple (at least for me) is not visible. IWI (chat) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Even in the expand section. IWI (chat) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I dunno what to say I see it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The WMF always neglects this project IMO. IWI (chat) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Might be best to clarify some things. DJSasso, would I be correct in assuming you don't have the compact language list? IWI, until the devs or whoever sends the patch through Gerrit gives some sort of update, it might be best to disable the compact language list (somewhere in preferences and it's configurable in the global preferences). Hiàn (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No idea to be honest. Doubt I would have gone and turned anything off. I rarely touch any of the preferences. I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Now that I think about it I did go turn it off because of the bug that Vermont pointed too. I have it off there and on here. I rarely use them anyway cause of User:Djsasso/enWPTab.js here and en:User:Djsasso/SimpleWPTab.js there. Only use them when our titles don't match. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Maybe you could take a screenshot of what you're seeing. There are two issues that could be affecting this.

  • First, are the enwiki and simple articles both linked in Wikidata? If they are, then the issue is with some setting, not with the linking. If either article links to the other via hardcoded interwiki links (there aren't supposed to be any more of those in articles, but there might be), that could affect what you see.
  • Second, are you using the compact language list option (on the appearance tab in your settings)? If so, it might be suppressing which languages you see on the left side of the screen.

If none of that explains it, a screenshot might help us figure it out. Also, if you don't know how to link two pages in Wikidata, see User:Auntof6/How to#Interwiki language links for new pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

He's probably using Compact Language Links, which doesn't include Simple at all, not even when searching directly for it. Vermont (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I am, I just checked it. That needs to change though, we might as well be invisible. IWI (chat) 23:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed clarifications of the GA/VGA criteria: List-type articles...Edit

Hello all, I know that the GA/VGA process is not used very much any more. I would nevertheless propose that we clarify whether "list-type articles" can be awarded the status of Good/Very Good Article. I would propose that we say that these articles cannot be given the status for the following reason:

  • A list of entries perhaps with a blurb lacks the depth of a normal article. The list can be complete, and it can be stable. The format does not allow to add much depth.
  • Verifying that a listing is complete and stable can be difficult.

Even though the English-Wikipedia has the equivalent of (very good) articles (as lists), I don't see much point in supporting such lists here (Lists themselves, are fine, but just not as Good/Very good lists). If the process was more active, and we had at last 3 candidates we could promote I could see a new category; as things stand now, I don't think we should support (very) good lists. What do other people think? --Eptalon (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Let us try to get 3 very good lists candidates first and this will be more relevant. I don't think there should be good lists as no other projects had it and very good lists are easier than very good articles. Once we have 3, it will be easier to argue as the category can be populated. The lists can be static, e.g. list of Confederate army commanders / List of World War 2 General and Flag officers etc. Depth can be obtained by how each list is described, each item is portrayed. As if completeness, it must be supported by sources to claim the list is completed. As of criteria, most of the items in the list must have articles on their own, so a creator need to create at least stubs of the rest. One good challenge will be en:List of U.S. National Forests and this properly translated will be a very good very good list.--Cohaf (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Re populating categories for good/very good lists: such categories would be exceptions and would not have to have three entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Three is only a rule of thumb and there are plenty of times where common sense dictates we don't need three. This would be one. The rule of thumb of 3 came when people would come here and add a page and all its categories and them work their way up the category tree creating categories where the only item in it was the category below it. We didn't want people creating category trees just to hold a single sub category below it etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think list articles should qualify for GA/VGA. We have low participation in the process as it is, and I'd rather see effort put more into regular articles. Besides that, the main focus here is use of simple language. List articles often have barely any prose at all (which I think is proper), so they aren't as valuable to the project as regular articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well technically the ones that would quality for that status would have a bunch of prose as they do on I don't think there is any reason for us to not allow for them if we ever get any. The fact we allow them and don't have any at the moment doesn't hurt anything. But they opportunity to have them in the future would benefit us. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


The former lead sentence of the geography article was too complex. I’ve tried to reword it but I’m not quite sure how to word this perfectly. IWI (chat) 00:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2019)Edit

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

  • Kinige – Primarily Indian-language ebooks - 10 books per month
  • Gale – Times Digital Archive collection added (covering 1785-2013)
  • JSTOR – New applications now being taken again

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Taylor & Francis, Cairn, Annual Reviews and Bloomsbury. You can request new partnerships on our Suggestions page.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 17:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.