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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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? See WP:ANI to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages —    change

Review of Purplebackpack89's community ban

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has requested for a review of their community ban. Before weighing in, please take some time to (re-)familiarise yourself with:

• The original ban discussion
• First ban review (May 2012)
• Ban review (August 2012)
• Ban review (January 2014)
• Ban review (March 2015)

--Chenzw  Talk  03:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Statements by PBP89

“

I'm not going to grovel, but I think this should be lifted. It's been eight years. That's insane. The block was ham-handed IDONTLIKE it from the beginning and there's no reason for it to continue. Also, if there really were serious problems, I'd have been banned from other projects, which I have not; not anywhere close. The fact that I haven't been blocked in over two years anywhere else, with thousands of edits since then, is all the evidence I need that this block is unnecessary.

”

I will try to be better in my interactions with other users. I think there's evidence that I have been better in other projects. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're seeking specific areas that I'm going to change, I seem to recall one of the things that caused some problems here was a contentious GA or VGA nomination. I've sworn off GA, VGA and FA nominations here, English or anywhere. (Note: that doesn't mean I don't improve articles, it means I don't engage in the GA, VGA or FA process). Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) (Again, copy-and-paste-able)

Discussion

• They're presently a trusted editor with some permissions on the English Wikipedia. I support an unban, as it's been so long and if there are more issues we can simply rediscuss and reinstate the ban. Vermont (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Most of those who commented in the fiest discussion are no longer around. As one of the few who were, I'd support lifing the ban. The editor has grown older. I currerently see no reason not to unban. --Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• I remember the drama involved in the ban discussions, although I didn't take part in them at the time. I would be happy to see the ban lifted, BUT this should be on a ONE STRIKE basis. If the original banning behaviour is repeated, then an immediate indefinite ban should be put back in place. Happy for people to get involved and help, don't have the time or the patience for drama.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading his unban proposal, I still see roots of what got him banned, and that it seems to be the same unban reason as always, but I also think we can't fully know if he's changed until we see it in practice. So I agree that, with some other people above, that he should be unbanned but if his actions are repeated within a short enough timeframe for him to be banned again, which I think could satisfy everyone since if the problems stop then there'd be no need (like ROPE). Computer Fizz (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• I still Oppose. Computer fizz sums it up his unblock request still shows what got him banned in the first place and had all his previous request rejected. He still doesn't acknowledge why he was banned which is a requirement of having the ban lifted. He still seems to think there wasn't an issue and does not take responsibility for his actions. --DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand why it is so hard to take responsibility and accept mistakes. This is the same kind of reasoning as always, what's so different this time?--BRP ^ever 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unban, on the following grounds:

1. The current unblock request alludes to some form of admin abuse that led to the user's original block and implies that the original block was made in error/should never have been made in the first place. I will, on procedural grounds, oppose any unblock request that attempts to misrepresent the original circumstances behind the block, be it through statements, suggestions, omissions etc. made either directly or indirectly, and will continue to oppose to future unblocks/unbans until such misrepresentations are withdrawn and/or corrected.
2. Community standards differ across projects; just because other Wikimedia wikis have not decided to ban a user does not mean said user is not problematic on this local wiki and (thus) warrants a ban from this wiki.
3. A search of the ANI archives on EN wiki reveals that several other established editors on EN (as well as uninvolved sysops who close discussions on noticeboards) have also shared some concerns on the user's adherence to community standards. Why there hasn't been a ban yet is not the concern of this wiki, and something left to the discretion of the EN community/ArbCom.
4. As also have been highlighted by some people above, no acknowledgement of the behaviour leading to the ban has been shown (also related: point 1 above). I have also spoken about this in previous ban reviews: [1] [2] [3]

--Chenzw  Talk  16:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• We've always taken the view that an honest change of heart and attitude would be relevant to lifting a long-term ban, but I see no evidence of this happening. Actually he's still convinced he was in the right and has no intention of changing. So we should continue the indefinite ban. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm quite aware some select policies and community standards do not translate across projects. However, I do believe this policy would apply to this instance. Therefore, I support unban with a ONESTRIKE threshold to reinstate an editing block while the community reconsiders the ban, in the event the editor does not make good faith edits or becomes abusive towards other editors as in the past. Should the ONESTRIKE be breached and the community ban be reinstated, I propose it should be extensive in length. Operator873^talkconnect 16:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say a onestrike unban is a reasonable position. If the user acts inappropriately, we can always ban again. If they become toxic to other users or something, then ban them again. If they just want to actually make some edits, why not? @Purplebackpack89: if you happen to get unbanned, I would suggest just keeping your head down and sticking to general edits. ~Junedude433^talk 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my position (and because it has been over a week with no more discussion and no conclusion), my support is that of en:WP:ROPE. That is, unblock them and see what happens. Another mistake and they're gone. As such, I support unban. ~Junedude433^talk 20:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Suggest that we continue the indefinite ban echoing the concerns above that Purplebackpack89 has never accepted the reasons for the original ban and even in this latest request continues to be argumentative. --Gotanda (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• As we rarely have ban discussions, I'm wondering if we need to judge consensus on whether to keep the ban in place, or whether to remove it? In other words, if the result is about half/half, do we keep it or remove it? Vermont (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vermont: I'm not entirely sure but i would say we need consensus to remove it, as typically the default is to keep things how they are. However most of the people who are voting to remove it do so on a one-strike basis, so i think the closing admin should go with that. Computer Fizz (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I commented in it so typically I can't close it, but if its roughly 50/50 then it would be no-consensus which means keep the status quo. -DJSasso (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Support unban under one-strike. I think under the circumstances, they deserve another chance. Derpdart56 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up soon? It's been a while. Most likely this will be archived off the page soon. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The archiving would have been the close...but you have reset the archiving timer by commenting. Not all discussions get an official close, some just end up archived as no consensus is ever reached. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Announcing: WikiProject: News!

Hi everyone; I would like to announce a new project of mine. WikiProject: News is a new news section for simple! I would like help, since I can't run it alone. I think there'll be 5 sections. Opinions and Interwiki news are the first two, since we'll have opinions about local matters, and interwiki news. We'll also be featuring a featured editor! Another section should be a place for humor and stuff. Thanks,--Derpdart56 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You haven't given any information about how people can get involved. My other two comments are that 1) opinions and humor are not news and 2) how will this be different from other attempts to have a news section? We had one earlier this year -- I was interviewed for it -- and it seems to have lasted for only one iteration. Other attempts have been similarly short-lived. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and not social media. The main need here is to build the article base. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

i don't think this wiki is big enough to need such a thing. you could try on the english wikipedia though, they have a lot of meta-projects, although i don't know that they'll take kindly to some of the other related stuff Computer Fizz (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It's more of a pet project... I guess I escalated too far. Sorry. --Derpdart56 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, what about just the actual news, but in simple English? I know there are equivalents for some other languages. For instance, NHK writes a few articles every day in simple Japanese; I have been learning Japanese for some time now, and those simple news articles have been very helpful. The standard English Wikipedia sort of has a news section, so why not us? I think it would make sense to have it, as it's a good way to help direct people to new articles (provided it's regularly updated unlike the DYK section). ~Junedude433^talk 18:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That's within the scope of Wikinews, not Wikipedia, and I highly doubt there will be consensus to create a Simple English Wikinews. Vermont (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked to create one on the incubator awhile back and was told simple english projects probably won't be made for a while. And that, if i did want to create one, it should be put either on the simple english wikipedia (here) or on the english wikinews. i'd personally recommend the english wikinews route since you need people naturally geared towards news more than simplicity, and also that this wiki doesn't have a good track record with WikiProjects. if you want any help, i can write up a proposal to the english wikinews about it Computer Fizz (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think a simple english tool on en wikinews would be wonderful! --Derpdart56 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team wants your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk pages project

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar

The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.

• In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
  • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
• Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

• Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
• Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
• Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The Editing team hopes to share results in November. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk)

11:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Syntax error in JSON.

Hi, I wanted to add * {{Tl|Incomplete}} under See also-section in a template doc but it says Syntax error in JSON. I have no idea why. Thx a lot for help! --W like wiki (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you got it. Likely an error in the code on the page. But that entire template was a duplicate recently created by someone who likely didn't know we already had it at another name. I have moved the other one to this name anyway so the error is moot now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Djsasso, Thx! --W like wiki (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Katyn

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! ~Junedude433^talk 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.~Junedude433^talk 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filter

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 protection

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)

Attention new page patrollers

I invite you all to regularly check the move log for pages being moved from userspace to mainspace. I just noticed a couple of such pages that needed to be deleted as advertising. Other such articles might need "patrolling" for other things, and they don't show up under new pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources not in English

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 2019

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. ~Junedude433^talk 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.~Junedude433^talk 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.~Junedude433^talk 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?

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. ~Junedude433^talk 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 (talk • contribs)

A question

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 please

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: WelcomeBot

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)

Help

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)

Help

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. 大诺史 (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 idea

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?

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 en.wiki 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 debate

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 en.wiki 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.~Junedude433^talk 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 en.wiki.

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

Introducing: Wikiproject: Video Game Hardware

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 it

--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?

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)