Open main menu


Who edits the most on Simple Wikipedia?Edit

How (Where) do I find a list of the most active editors on this Wikipedia? Kdammers (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kdammers: This might not be exactly what you want, but Special:ActiveUsers shows the number of edits by all users who "had some kind of activity within the last 30 days". It's sorted by user name, and there doesn't seem to be a way to sort by number of edits. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@BlackcurrantTea:, Thanks for this excellent link for Wikimedia Statistics. Not sure how accurate it is for measuring editor activity on Simple, but if you click All Metrics then Legacy page views you will see that Simple is definitely being vied by more people. Between 2008-2011 it was viewed by 5 million people every month, but now it is viewed by 3-7 times more people. Way to go Simple! Ottawahitech (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlackcurrantTea: or anyone else, is there a way to measure how many edits are the addition of new material to wp: mainspace compared to reverts, posting of various notices, and edits to non-mainspace? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • [1] This is the link you need. Scroll down and you get a proper analysis. The section is called "50 recently active wikipedians, excl. bots, ordered by number of contributions". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross, the numbers on that page are old. The recently active list says that someone's first edit was 27 December 2017, and that it was 368 days ago. It also says 16 June 2018 was 197 days ago. At the top of the page, it says 'Jan 31, 2019: This is the final release of Wikistats-1 dump-based reports', which I understand to mean that 31 January 2019 was the last time the page was (or will be) updated. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

proposed change to Template:tlEdit

to anyone here who's interested in templates i propose a change to template:tl which shows that, whenever trying to supply more than one parameter, it will be added to a category to use {{tlwp}} instead. you can see the proposed template here. is everyone okay with this? Computer Fizz (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The only concern I have is that this would make our copy of the template different from the enwiki one. I'm not sure how much difference that would make with this particular template, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Template:Uw-vandalism2 is also different from enwiki, specifically the icon. i don't think making the templates different is a huge concern because of this although it would be neat to have them look similar. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as keeping templates in sync with enwiki, each template should be considered on its own merits. A vandalism template isn't comparable to this one. To me, the issue concerning synchronizing is not how it looks, but what happens if/when the template is "refreshed" from enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
what do you mean by "refreshed"? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I mean when the current enwiki version is brought over to replace the version here. We don't have an official process to do that regularly, but it happens sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
so i guess NOTENWIKI can go right next to DEAL . would probably be a good idea to stop doing that IMO, or at least add a note that we made this change. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(Psst: it would help if you would use actual links when you mention shortcuts: not all of us can immediately remember what they all are.) Do you mean it would be a good idea not to overwrite our templates with the enwiki versions? I think we could have a better process for that, but it's necessary sometimes. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

well to be perfectly honest the reason i didn't link them is because i couldn't remember what they were called either :P. and yeah i do think it would be best to do that, especially when templates need to be simple. Computer Fizz (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good point, but there comes a point where we have to update templates to keep up with underlying technology changes, to take advantage of new functionality, or to allow templates to work when people transwiki articles. Most of what needs to be updated in the templates isn't in the visible part where language needs to be simplified. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it would be best to put those notes in a comment then instead of documentation? Computer Fizz (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm having trouble braining today. :) What notes are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The note that says, "If you update this template, remember to add the category placer". Computer Fizz (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change this template. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: late reply but the change to the template is because i frequently see people trying to use like {{tl|template|parameter}} even though you have to use {{tlwp}} for that. this category will help to fix it and won't really remove any functionality. the only downside is yet another category but that's an issue for another day imo. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
So what exactly is the consensus here? Laptop Fizz (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is a consensus the change is needed. I don't know that I have ever seen an issue with this even once. The easy solution is just to link the other template in the other templates section of the documentation (which it already is). -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That wouldn't identify the pages that are trying to display parameters in addition to a template name. Even if the change were made only temporarily, we could grab the list of pages trying to do that, undo the change, then check them and decide whether to remove the parameters or use the other template. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again an issue we have discussed many times...Edit

We are getting once again pages of the type "Anywhere Americans", which are so dotty because there is almost no American alive who does not originate somewhere else in the world. It is the way entries are not defined and controlled, and the sheer senselessness of the lists which follow. People move all over the world, and the place to put their individual movements would be on their biog page. Even then it might well not be notable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to pages such as those made by 2601:81:4300:99F2:C99C:D97A:7AF6:3BE5? Desertborn (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I assume he was, they were nuked as disruptive editing which have been to rfd previously. That being said, the topics if the pages were filled out with more detail, would almost definitely be notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and added more detail to the Karl Glusman page, so it should be okay now. ~Junedude433talk 15:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Can someone possibly figure out what seems to be malfunctioning, or at least is different in contrast to the corresponding template on enwiki e.g. which does prefill reasons and doesn't open a new page, whereas this one does.

[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|{{#if:{{{reasonlink|}}}|wpReason={{{reasonlink}}}&|}}action=delete}} deletion]

...seems to indicate that a reason is filled, but that doesn't happen for me, and I'm not sure what's making it want to open a new tab. -- Lofty abyss 12:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lofty abyss: according to your contributions you are using twinkle to nominate qd's right? that is what is causing the new tabs to open, not the actual QD template. if you don't like that you can edit your preferences here, or nominate pages for QD "by hand". And fullurl is for internal links, not external.
Sorry i may be misinterpreting what you are saying so if I have it all wrong could you try to rephrease? Computer Fizz (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Computer Fizz: I've disabled it in prefs and deleted the global js page so it wouldn't have an effect here, and I still get no prefilled reasons, still opens a new tab. -- Lofty abyss 12:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lofty abyss, Djsasso: Well to the best of my knowledge templates are not capable of opening a new tab so you might want to check the javascript. Also I pinged Djsasso cause he is good with wiki javascript. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse MitigationEdit

I think this subject is worth exploring (so I am putting it here), I know some other wikis have been notified by WMF and they are engaging more wikis (i.e. A message here which I will copy below). I think this wiki will be one of the hardest hit as our IP editor to registered editor ratio is one of the highest amongst all Wikimedia Content Wiki. Do read the message below which is done by Johan (WMF)

Hey everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation wants to work on two things that affect how we patrol changes and handle vandalism and harassment. We want to make the tools that are used to handle bad edits better. We also want to get better privacy for unregistered users so their IP addresses are no longer shown to everyone in the world. We would not hide IP addresses until we have better tools for patrolling.

We have an idea of what tools could be working better and how a more limited access to IP addresses would change things, but we need to hear from more wikis. You can read more about the project on Meta and post comments and feedback. Now is when we need to hear from you to be able to give you better tools to handle vandalism, spam and harassment.

You can post in your language if you can't write in English.

--Cohaf (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New button and boxes on history pageEdit

In the last month, I've seen a new button on the history pages here which says 'edit tags of selected revisions'. There's also a box to tick by each change listed on the page, if you want to change the tags for that one. Do people often want to change these tags?

Maybe I'll want to do this sometime, but I don't need the button or the boxes right now. I would like to turn it off and remove the boxes, but it's not in my settings. I tried a different skin, but that didn't change it. Is there a way to turn this off? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Those have been there for as long as I can remember. Maybe you are just noticing them now. No there is no way to remove them. I believe they are baked into the underlying software so you wouldn't be able to remove them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's strange. Maybe I only noticed it now because I've looked at history pages more in the last month. I've clicked the box when I wanted to click the radio button next to it often enough that it was annoying me, so I posted here.

There are only two other Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites I've noticed that use it, Wikisource and Spanish Wikipedia. The others I've recently visited (English, French, and German Wikipedia; Wikidata, Commons, Meta, Wikibooks) don't use it. This makes me think it's a choice that someone made, and makes me wonder again if, or how often, people change the tags. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is on English as well. Chances are its just an extra right we give with our auto-confirmed that some of the others do not, which would explain why you may not have seen it at first when you first came here and then did after awhile, but if that is the case it still wouldn't be changeable by individual users. -DJSasso (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Template MMAEdit

Please ask any of your experienced editors to make an infobox template for Mixed martial artists so that i can create articles related to them. Your help will be appreciated. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@ClumsyMind: what do you want on the template? (i.e. what inputs) Computer Fizz (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@ClumsyMind: Enwiki uses Template:Infobox martial artist, so I imported it for you. Let me know if there are any issues. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much @Auntof6: and @Computer Fizz:. Editor ClumsyMind (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Deploy Internet Archive Bot?Edit

I was just wondering if there is any progress? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You can follow the progress on this phabricator ticket. As there are a large number of tickets for that bot, I assume it may take a bit. Desertborn (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Update on the consultation about office actionsEdit

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • See above under "Constitutional crisis". I did tell you-all that this was a VIP issue about the boundaries between the wikis and the Foundation, but you decided to delete our discussion page on the grounds that "it didn't concern us". Well, it does concern us: it's not just about English wiki. Please spend a bit of time reading the full story of what happened. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It still doesn't concern us. Since we didn't have an Arbcom we have always fallen under their purview. Nothing has changed except they have written some stuff out. I think that is what you didn't grasp. While obviously it affects us in that what they do affects us, the difference is that on this wiki it always has, the big change in all of this is for wiki's with Arbcoms. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: Just wanted to thank @Cohaf: for bringing us, simpletons, to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team . Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: No problem, I had always advocated for more communication between the foundation and us. And to be clear, @Djsasso: I am very busy with multiple stuffs so I may not have time to elaborate but it does matter to us. The foundation is introducing something (or rather will like to engage with us) with something called partial foundation ban / temporary foundation ban. Our wiki isn't one with arbcom but that doesn't affect how we can handle such situations, are there ways to have private stuff to be discussed without T&S seems to be overstepping on our toes, those are something we can think about and raise up. I am active in multiple communities and hence, I will just give my opinion on meta after reading through again what the entire consultation is about. Best --Cohaf (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said it of course affects us in that we live under whatever they decide. But in the end we are a small wiki with under 30 active users. The whole reason we don't have an Arbcom is so that they can deal with all that crap. We very specifically leave all of this to T&S already, there is no stepping on our toes because we want them to take care of that stuff. That is why the whole "the sky is falling" rhetotic that Macdonald-ross had above is not really warranted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso:. To clarify, you meant that we will accept if T&S does something like FRAM case here. Like we take office actions as a policy page not like per enwp an information page. It will be good to get local consensus to give full authority to give like say a 1 year ban on Simple for something. I am not opposing this but is there any instance this is discussed locally? I don't oppose full global bans but these I think we still have some room to discuss. --Cohaf (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to Simple WikiEdit

Hi. Just wanted to let everyone know (not sure if you remember me) that after a very long break (about five years with very rare edits to Simple Wiki) I have decided to return here, mainly to help with anti-vandalism efforts since it seems to me that there is still a need for that around here. I don't think I'll be doing any article work though, at least for now. Just wanted to mention this in case (for the people who were here before) are surprised to see me back. Reception123 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back. :) Hiàn (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Numberblocks editing situationEdit

If you see the history for Numberblocks it is clear that there is a sort of edit war going on where different IPs argue over if a character in this TV series is a male or a female, and this has been going on for a long time. I've discussed with Vermont on IRC and he suggested that I write a thread here so we can discuss what to do. I'd suggest leaving a message on the IPs talkpages and asking them to discuss via the talkpage rather than continuously undoing each other's edits as they are currently doing. If they continue, perhaps a temporary protection for that page will be necessary, as currently their edit war is not constructive. Reception123 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on this I have taken the liberty of asking the IPs on their talkpages to take the discussion to the article talkpage rather than undoing the edits. --Reception123 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Reception123! If this continues, I would recommend to protect the article so only auto-confirmed editors can edit. Desertborn (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was also thinking would be an appropriate action. Reception123 (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm now requesting that an admin takes a look at this and possibly take action by semi-protecting the page, as it's obvious that the IPs will change every time and this edit war has been going on for far too long. Reception123 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Upcoming moviesEdit

I'm looking for ideas on how to manage this category. I just removed 14 entries from it for movies that have already been released. (There are 8 entries left.) I'd like to find a way to manage the category so that movies don't stay there too long after they are released. (Some of the ones I removed were released last year.)

Here are the ideas I could think of:

  • Eliminate the category, and just leave the "<year> movies" categories to tell us when a movie is coming out/came out.
  • Disallow hardcoding the category, and use the {{movie date}} template to specify the release date. That template adds the upcoming movie category only if the release date is still in the future. The template is most often used in infoboxes, which some of our movie articles don't have, but it could also be used in the text. There could be issues with this, however, if a movie doesn't get released on the expected date.

Even if we manage this category better, however, article text usually needs to be changed at the time a movie comes out. There is a template that will use different text based on whether a specified date has passed, but some movies don't get released on the date originally expected. That's something else that could be managed better.

Your thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think both ideas are good, but I'd prefer the second one because even if the movie doesn't get released on the original date, that could be updated and I don't think that occurrence is that frequent. As for the infobox issue, that could be a good way to encourage us to get more movie articles to have infoboxes. Reception123 (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't really see this as being any different than updating any other out of date data. Just fix it when you see it. Not everything needs bureaucracy to fix. (obviously the best solution would be just for people creating the pages to add the infobox so that it uses the template and they don't have to hard code but that is never going to happen every time and you can't disallow hardcoding, that is just ridiculous bureaucracy on a wiki that is trying to be simple) -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand that you think it isn't important to fix this, but you can disagree without calling my suggestions ridiculous. This wouldn't be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy; it's a good faith effort to address a problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Yea it might be possible to make the category automatically be removed after a certain point in time but i do agree with djsasso about other stuff. There is a problem of having too much automation but without it, sometimes this stuff can go unnoticed for years. Computer Fizz (talk | contribs) 23:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)