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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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? |
Inactive check user policy proposal
changeI have begun a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Inactive check users to prompt discussion of a new policy regarding inactive check users. Please use the associated talk page to discuss it. The current page is just a starting point and will change over time. Thank you for participating. fr33kman 16:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Fr33kman I know a few wikis where similar policies were proposed including globally if I remember, but there was a heavy opposition considering the nature of this tool. Primarily because marking a number of checks as a requirement to keep these tools will encourage rash and unnecessary checks. And secondarily, since the tools involve a lot more than just doing logged checks. Like, keeping other CUs in check, processing unblock requests, cross-wiki coordination, acting based on information shared among CUs in CUwiki and many more. BRP ever 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that there are problems with any policies of this nature but believe there must be a way to dissuade users getting the hat and then never or rarely using it. Just like the project needs active editors so to does the checkuser group need active CUs. If having any of the admin bits truly is "no big deal" then why hang onto a flag you never use. Non-admin editors already have issues regarding the admiration of admins , especially stewards, it is incumbent upon us to dissuade that sort of thinking. Volunteering to give up a hat because you never use it would show that having it in the first place truly was no biggie. However it's done, I see a problem and I seek an answer. fr33kman 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the difficulty in convincing 25+ people that you should have the tool already a mechanism to dissuade users from getting the hat and not using it?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- +1. The hat is so difficult to get in the first place that I'm not worried about hat collectors. Also, all of the problems with this on other wikis apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed! I don't think we have a hat collector problem here. I greatly admire our admin pool and do not think people ask for tools they don't need. But to get the flag, be active for a while and then peter off is a problem. Getting the flag is difficult for a reason, the information we gather can be very dangerous as we all know what misuse can bring about. fr33kman 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really about hat collectors. But if there's a concern about too many checkusers, you'd want to remove less active checkusers so you could replace them with more active ones. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, five checks in six months seems like a lot for a wiki of this size. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see two basic problems: Cu logs aren't public, so only a checkuser (or steward) can tell if I ran a check. Also, CUs also run other checks, about which they don't necessarily tell at WP:rfcu. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- A quick look at the logs show who is active and who isn't. My main concern is the RfCU page and the checks that are done there. Brian and Vermont don't factor in because it's obvious that they are very active with the tools. If the inactive CUs were doing similar work that'd be fine and I wouldn't have an issue other than our mutually agreed statement for the need for help with the "public" side of the work we do. We'll always have more work going on in the background than at RfCU due to the nature of xwiki investigations. If inactive CUs want to use their tools doing background jobs then I'd welcome that. I'm talking about someone who uses it a few times a year. We do have a disproportionate number of CUs to admins and that's not going to change. With the spill over of problems coming at us from enwiki we just need help with the request pool. fr33kman 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- The number of times a CU uses the tool per set period of time isn't really important. I'm just wondering how we can encourage colleagues to become more active or step down to allow someone else to take up the fight. Although five actions in six months is a trivial task to achieve . There is enough work to keep us all in an active state. fr33kman 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see two basic problems: Cu logs aren't public, so only a checkuser (or steward) can tell if I ran a check. Also, CUs also run other checks, about which they don't necessarily tell at WP:rfcu. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @FusionSub, yes getting the hat is hard in the first place but with the ratio of actives to inactives I think it it doesn't dissuade inactivity. fr33kman 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Depends on how big of a possibility there was for the RfP to fail. An RfP like yours, where it was unanimous? I can see your point. But if you struggle to get it and only get it by 1 or 2 !votes, then I believe my point applies, since they put in a chunk of work to convince the wider community.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- (forgot to ping @Fr33kman).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Depends on how big of a possibility there was for the RfP to fail. An RfP like yours, where it was unanimous? I can see your point. But if you struggle to get it and only get it by 1 or 2 !votes, then I believe my point applies, since they put in a chunk of work to convince the wider community.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- +1. The hat is so difficult to get in the first place that I'm not worried about hat collectors. Also, all of the problems with this on other wikis apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the difficulty in convincing 25+ people that you should have the tool already a mechanism to dissuade users from getting the hat and not using it?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that there are problems with any policies of this nature but believe there must be a way to dissuade users getting the hat and then never or rarely using it. Just like the project needs active editors so to does the checkuser group need active CUs. If having any of the admin bits truly is "no big deal" then why hang onto a flag you never use. Non-admin editors already have issues regarding the admiration of admins , especially stewards, it is incumbent upon us to dissuade that sort of thinking. Volunteering to give up a hat because you never use it would show that having it in the first place truly was no biggie. However it's done, I see a problem and I seek an answer. fr33kman 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Better idea?
change- @fenufanga mentioned the idea of a possible reelection of CUs. That would give the community a chance to hold CUs to account for their activity status without using a number of actions per year, which can easily be done in a week by a CU. With a reelection process the question can become one of quality rather than quantity. fr33kman 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think we are okay. There is no crisis. Looking at the list of users Vermont and Bsad are pretty active, Eptalon and you are pretty responsive in RfCU, Djsasso and Operator are probably taking a break and will be back once ready since their general activity is low, and Peterdownunder is ready to step down if needed. We don't allow CU without admin bits, so I don't think such a drastic new process is needed. BRP ever 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am not completely missing, I mostly am just a bit quieter than usual. But if a CU is needed am usually around to check. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- While I do believe this could be a good idea, I have doubts that we can actually plan such a thing.
- For example: WP:Oversight candidates explicitly mentions the plan to run oversighter elections, presumably similar to EN's election thingy. Such a plan didn't come into action and if we couldn't then with more active editors, then I have no reason to believe we can pull off such a system in our current wiki-landscape.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think we are okay. There is no crisis. Looking at the list of users Vermont and Bsad are pretty active, Eptalon and you are pretty responsive in RfCU, Djsasso and Operator are probably taking a break and will be back once ready since their general activity is low, and Peterdownunder is ready to step down if needed. We don't allow CU without admin bits, so I don't think such a drastic new process is needed. BRP ever 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @fenufanga mentioned the idea of a possible reelection of CUs. That would give the community a chance to hold CUs to account for their activity status without using a number of actions per year, which can easily be done in a week by a CU. With a reelection process the question can become one of quality rather than quantity. fr33kman 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Country-musicians *raised* in 'a state of the United States'
changeThere were some
"List of country musicians from 'state in the United States']],
that were deleted some years ago.--Those, and List of country musicians from California, have little interest, to me.
("Never-ending" discussions about the meaning of 'from', is not my cup of tea.) However,
List of country musicians raised in Texas,
is a list that i might start.--If a person was raised in two or more states, then I am fine with just having that person in "Related pages", or (much less likely) section "Raised in different states".
List of country musicians from California, has some names that 'could end up on two lists'.--However, I am not planning on starting,
"List of country musicians raised in California".--Is there anything more to say then, except: if there are too many protests about "my" list, then it will get taken to AfD?--Remember also to give thanks to those who do a lot of work with categories. 2001:2020:341:DA4B:F071:D4FE:8575:D928 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Kris Kristofferson (d. 2024), has 'always' been on the 'California list' (because he was raised there).--When any 'Texas list' gets created - then how does one avoid him being 'Listed on two similar lists'?
The following could be mentioned on 'the (upcoming) Texas list',
"* Kris Kristoffersen [not blue-linked]" ,see List of country musicians raised in California"
In that way, Kristoffersen 'is only on one list (California)' (and the few people that know that Kristoffersen was born in Texas, will find his name, and see which 'one list that Kristoffersen really belongs to'. Note: there is no list here called, "List of ... born in California").
"Raised in California", is part of topic "From Californa". (Would anyone argue "No", to that point?) 2001:2020:355:C958:1431:DC72:A783:3460 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC) / 02:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:DA4B:F071:D4FE:8575:D928
List of country musicians from Texas.
Please move this discussion to the talk pages about those article. (As long as the above link, remains a blue-link.) 2001:2020:355:C958:844A:668F:EAB3:62AA (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
New template
changeI plan to move User:Cactusisme/Replied to templates, any comments? Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme The png should probably be changed to the svg version as that is generally what is used in these types of templates.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @FusionSub Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have no objections now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @FusionSub Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 08:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of this template? -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 The purpose of this template is so that when some mentions you in their talk page/admin noticeboard, and the place a thread of your talk page, you can use this so that they know you have replied. Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 11:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Usually we just do that by pinging, like you just pinged me. But I guess it won't hurt anything. Just please write a doc page for it and categorize it appropriately. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Alright Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 I have written the docs. Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- here: User:Cactusisme/Replied/doc Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Thanks. A couple of notes:
- In the template, put the noinclude tag right after the text on the first line, with no new line in between.
- In the doc page, you don't need to include the related pages section, which I assume you copied from another doc page.
- -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 10:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Not quite. Is it OK if I make a couple of changes? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 Yes, sure Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. Any questions about what I did? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Sorry, forgot to ping you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, thanks for the help!! Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 11:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 Yes, sure Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Not quite. Is it OK if I make a couple of changes? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 Done Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 10:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Thanks. A couple of notes:
- here: User:Cactusisme/Replied/doc Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cactusisme: Usually we just do that by pinging, like you just pinged me. But I guess it won't hurt anything. Just please write a doc page for it and categorize it appropriately. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 The purpose of this template is so that when some mentions you in their talk page/admin noticeboard, and the place a thread of your talk page, you can use this so that they know you have replied. Cactus🌵 spiky ツ 11:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Unimportant wording question
changeI notice that "attempt" is on WP:BASIC while "try" is not. Both are on WP:VOA. While at https://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/vp/comp/output.pl, "try" is level 1 and "attempt" is level 2. From my personal perspective, "try" seems simpler. Does this mean we should use "attempt" instead because we're trying to use only 850 words whenever possible? I was looking at Ryan Wesley Routh when I saw both words used. Batrachoseps (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- A thought of mine: "an attempt" - "two attempts" (and simple in many ways).
"a try" - "two tries" (and maybe not simple).--However, in spoken American-Engish (at least), 'try' arguably feels more simple to write, as a verb. 2001:2020:341:E598:E536:4693:5330:C3A9 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)- I've always assumed, or tried, to use any word as long as it's on one of the three lists. Does this question mean we should always and try to use most simple word we can? Because I could see problems with that such as with grammar and awkward wordings. fr33kman 04:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Be bold, and continue to write 'try'.--Then, anyone can come and change to,
"try (or attempt)".--Assumption-that-maybe-should-be-moved-toward-consensus: In many cases "try" will work at least as well as "attempt".--Another thing: Am i fine with an article, first using "attempt", and later in such article - using "try", "try" and "try"? Yeah, i probably will not lift a finger.--Yet another thing: One case that stands out, where i feel that "an attempt" is better than "a try"; Charles Lindbergh succeeded on the famous attempt to cross the Atlantic. 2001:2020:323:EFC5:40D3:BC0A:DD2B:F5F9 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Be bold, and continue to write 'try'.--Then, anyone can come and change to,
- I've always assumed, or tried, to use any word as long as it's on one of the three lists. Does this question mean we should always and try to use most simple word we can? Because I could see problems with that such as with grammar and awkward wordings. fr33kman 04:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Batrachoseps: It's frustrating not to be able to know why words were or were not included on the list. It might be that "try" wasn't included because it has multiple meanings. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Try could mean to take a sample of something, or to hold a trial. Then there's the rugby meaning but that's probably derived from the normal meaning. I'll use attempt. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would a 9-10 year old normally know the word "attempt"? I'm not around young kids much, so I'm not sure. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Batrachoseps: I don't know. I didn't mean not to use "try", just to give an idea of why it might not be on the list. Some words can be either simple or complex, depending on how they're used or their specific meaning. In this case, I think the meaning of "attempt" is simple enough. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see, thanks. Batrachoseps (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- I checked with a teacher friend and she says the average 9-10 year old would definitely know the word attempt for sure. fr33kman 05:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Batrachoseps: I don't know. I didn't mean not to use "try", just to give an idea of why it might not be on the list. Some words can be either simple or complex, depending on how they're used or their specific meaning. In this case, I think the meaning of "attempt" is simple enough. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Would a 9-10 year old normally know the word "attempt"? I'm not around young kids much, so I'm not sure. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Try could mean to take a sample of something, or to hold a trial. Then there's the rugby meaning but that's probably derived from the normal meaning. I'll use attempt. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Short desc
changeIs there a template for the short description? I tried using Template:Short description, but it didn’t work.
I’m not a new editor, I edit on the English version and unfamiliar with Simple English. Tonkarooson (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Tonkarooson: That template has null content because we don't use short descriptions here.
- If you'd like to know other things that are different here, have a look at this list I maintain of things that are different here. The list itself is not policy or guideline, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
'Wikidata item' link is moving. Find out where...
changeHello everyone, a small change will soon be coming to the user-interface of your Wikimedia project. The Wikidata item sitelink currently found under the General section of the Tools sidebar menu will move into the In Other Projects section.
We would like the Wiki communities feedback so please let us know or ask questions on the Discussion page before we enable the change which can take place October 4 2024, circa 15:00 UTC+2.
More information can be found on the project page.
We welcome your feedback and questions.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Request
changeCan I talk to somebody on here privately? It's about a falling out I had with several admins and editors on enwiki that got me blocked indefinitely and I'm not discussing this on there for reasons I'm not gonna go into. 121.136.126.163 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to write me a mail, I am open to discussion. Eptalon (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's about a group of users and admins attacking/insulting me and blocking me on enwiki 210.217.117.24 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- We are not here to comment of enwiki's problems with thier users. They don't comment on our issues, we don't generally comment of their issues. Please email their admins mailing list instead of trying to get us to help you fight your case. fr33kman 21:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- The admins are not going to respond on any of the mailing lists
- I wouldn't be coming to this page for help if they were responding to me 2601:C8:280:8000:747A:CFD:7DF7:7978 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Administrator note: /64 is globally blocked as LTA. MathXplore (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Talk about a proxy chain.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Administrator note: /64 is globally blocked as LTA. MathXplore (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Fr33kman:? 178.234.79.192 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- We are not interested in helping you fight your case on enwiki. You are disruptong this project and are now under the WP: ONESTRIKE rule. fr33kman 23:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Administrator note: This IP is also a blocked proxy. MathXplore (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Administrator note: Special:Contributions/210.217.117.24 is another blocked proxy. MathXplore (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- We are not here to comment of enwiki's problems with thier users. They don't comment on our issues, we don't generally comment of their issues. Please email their admins mailing list instead of trying to get us to help you fight your case. fr33kman 21:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's about a group of users and admins attacking/insulting me and blocking me on enwiki 210.217.117.24 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Administrator note: The IP editor is a blocked proxy. MathXplore (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, at last someone who notices. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- \: .- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
non-English alphabets
changeCould some people please make some comments on Talk:Ɓ? Thx fr33kman 13:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Would anyone like to look at a display error?
changeIn the infobox on Kallithea there are some stray characters right before and right after the images. I did a little investigation, but I couldn't find the problem and I can't keep looking at it right now. Maybe someone else would like to try...? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Auntof6 I updated Template:Infobox Greek Dimos from en:Template:Infobox Greek place and it is now working correctly. Previously, our version of the template was not a wrapper of Template:Infobox settlement, but now it is. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Batrachoseps: Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject
changeHi, I made a WikiProject called WikiProject Gaming. You can join if you want! Thetree284 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Paid editing
changeHaving come across User:CheerfulJug whilst deleting the BLP page they were editing it occurred to me we may wish to alter Twinkle to have a single purpose notice template to address paid editing on this project. Personally, I find paid editing disturbing but that's just my opinion. Thoughts? fr33kman 21:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to Participate in Wiki Loves Ramadan Community Engagement Survey
changeDear all,
We are excited to announce the upcoming Wiki Loves Ramadan event, a global initiative aimed at celebrating Ramadan by enriching Wikipedia and its sister projects with content related to this significant time of year. As we plan to organize this event globally, your insights and experiences are crucial in shaping the best possible participation experience for the community.
To ensure that Wiki Loves Ramadan is engaging, inclusive, and impactful, we kindly invite you to participate in our community engagement survey. Your feedback will help us understand the needs of the community, set the event's focus, and guide our strategies for organizing this global event.
Survey link: https://forms.gle/f66MuzjcPpwzVymu5
Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. Your input will make a difference!
Thank you for being a part of our journey to make Wiki Loves Ramadan a success.
Warm regards,
User:ZI Jony 03:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team
Automatic archiving for WP:RFCU
changeHello all, the requests at WP:RFCU usually get handled fairly quickly. I would therefore propose we set up the bot to also archive them automatically; proposed parameters: 10d old, min 2 threads left. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Related previous discussion can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Archiving. MathXplore (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Considering how RfCU works, I would want to see the bot be tested in a RfCU replica before firmly saying yay or nay.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Template:Langx
changeI was expanding features on {{Langx}}. To import data from en:Module:Lang, in order to work properly for Module:Lang/langx.
Also: