Wikipedia:Simple talk

This page has been getting a lot of activity, and I think the gallery is getting too big. Would someone like to try to get it under control? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont like it, it is innaproppriate, so someone should, agreed. (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just letting you know that Wikipedia is not censored. We may remove photos from the gallery because it is too large, but not because it’s “inappropriate”. Thanks for commenting. Illusion Flame (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but i am under 18. (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read w:Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. MathXplore (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't thinking that it was inappropriate, just that there seems to be duplication of what the images are illustrating. We don't need to show every possible combination of characteristics. Some solutions (which I might try if no one else does):
  • Move some of the images into relevant sections of the article.
  • Remove images if others are basically showing the same thing.
-- Auntof6 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed a lot of extraneous images and left only those images that explain the topic. fr33kman 16:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fr33kman: Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:CENSOR Wikipedia is not censored. Bobherry Talk My Changes 20:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry: That is absolutely true. I am not suggesting that we censor the page. There are a good number of images already in the body of the article, and I wasn't addressing those. In fact, one of my suggestions was just to move the images from the gallery into appropriate sections of the article. The issue is that among the images in the gallery there was not enough difference to justify having so many. Did you see what was there at the time I posted this? I would have the same issue with any other topic if a gallery had a lot of similar images. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also thought that there was excess images. (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are several reasons I think it is desirable to have an array of images:
1. Search Engine Optimization: I tried to put words in the captions that people are likely to search on. It is important (in my opinion) to draw readers to Simple Wikipedia, particularly on a topic like this for which there is a great deal of poor quality information on the internet. Having more images with high value search terms in the captions increases the chances that someone will find this article. On a topic like this, a fairly high proportion of people may do an image search in deciding what website to go to. We have good content here. We should not hide our light under a basket (i.e. we shouldn't be shy about trying to get listed near the top of search results in search engines.)
2. In a topic like this, a lot of people come to the article wondering, "Is my penis normal?" Presenting a variety of images will help reassure people that, yes, they are normal.
3. People may need an image for a report or some similar purpose. People may need an photo taken from a particular angle, etc. Rather than direct people to the Commons, which is filled with poor quality images, I think in this case it is preferable to present a curated selection of a dozen or so diverse images.
4. Where possible, we should try to include different skin tones. Tetsuo (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good solution. (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's important to note that Wikipedia is a source of education not medical diagnosis. I've removed the gallery because there are enough pictures to show the subject of the article. If a person is trying to find out if a spot on their penis is normal or if the shade of their penis is normal they are better off to go to a medical site. fr33kman 20:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My intention was not related to medical diagnosis at all, just self image. A high percentage of males have insecurities about whether their penis is "normal" in appearance. Many females may also be curious about whether their boyfriend's penis is "normal". The skin tone issue is a matter of trying to make Wikipedia relevant to a wider racial spectrum of users. Wikipedia has been reported in the media as being very white-centric. Tetsuo (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would take an infinite number of pictures to show every variation of penises out there. There are other sites where people can review such information or they can ask their doctor about such questions. Our job is to provide an understanding of the topic and not every single possible option. I think the article as it stands right now fulfils our purpose very well. fr33kman 18:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How was my answer related to diagnoses. (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello there, no matter what your age is: don't complain that on a page on penises you might see an image of a penis. There are groups of people who think that women should go through their lives fully veiled, yet we have pictures of women showing their face, their hair, women in bikinis and nude women. Images are there to illustrate and explain. Eptalon (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that, but someone said my answer was reakted to diagnoses, I did not see how that was the case. (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ofc xx Liam Flynn 08 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the heck?! is this vandalism?? (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writer vs author Edit

This has been annoying me for years. We have separate articles for Writer and Author. Each has their own matching page There is a slight difference as an author is a person who creates an original work. It does not have to be a written work though. From a SEnglish view point, I think for our usage, writer is most often the correct term for what is meant to be said. When talking about a person who uses written word to communicate, we are talking about a writer. But more often than not, it tends to be editors choice on which term to use.

As written, the two articles here talk about the same thing with an added blurb at the end of the article which is easy to miss. It need to be more prominent as it is the major difference between the term.

If there is consensus, I would suggest Writer be the preferred term for linking and general naming conventions (sililar to the use of movie over film). The article for author would be rewritten in a manner more in keeping with the En page in the Author is similar but different and the page describes how that is. My basis for this opinion is that a writer is always a person who writes while and author can have other meanings which are not as obvious. Writer is just much simpler and less ambiguous. the alternate, as I see it, would be to continue as we are going and have editors chose which term they favor as they are writing.

Should this be the decided course of action, a bot could be harnessed to adjust links similar to how it was originally down with movie / film, but as with that, it will likely be an eternally ongoing task to keep the linking as chosen. Pure Evil (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess author, because it sounds more professional for an encyclopedia. But writer, for authors of written works, sounds reasonable. (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not about sounding professional. It is about what is easier for the reader to understand, especially with a limited vocabulary. Pure Evil (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That still suggests that author should be used. (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, it suggests that writer should be used. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have "Category:Writers". We seem to not have, "Category:Authors". Fine!--Now, please enlighten me: Are there cases of authors, who have never been writers? (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can have an author without being a writer. Take the example of a company president dictating a letter to a secretary. The secretary is the writer but the president is the author. fr33kman 17:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The secretary is doing the physical writing, but I don't think they'd be called a writer for doing that. For our purposes, author and writer mean the same thing; they mean the person who composes a piece of writing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legally that must be so. The whole of copyright law depends on it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It must be author. (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writer is easier for English learners, because they will probably know the verb write and the suffix -er and be able to figure out what the word means if they don't already know it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, I will agree, but I am fluent to english and for me it is challenging to write in simple english. (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sometimes people don't understand that writing in simple language is harder. People who are learning English sometimes assume that any English they know must be simple just because they don't know much English. People who are fluent in English think that any writing that is clear must be simple enough. Neither of those is necessarily true.
An offshoot of this is that people in our target audience (people whose English skills are limited) are often not able to write well here, for different reasons. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Writer" has the advantage of coming from the "basic" verb "write." "Author" has the advantage of having more cognates in Indo-European languages. Since 1950, "author has maintained about a double frequency in books according to Google n-gram viewer ( Kdammers (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does not mean it is simple. (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writer is a more frequent word than author, and word frequency is strongly related to comprehension. Our 1500 word list has "writing". "Author" is not there. We went over this kind of thing years ago. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quit, do whatever you like :( (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started a discussion on Talk:Lusatian – New Marchian dialects. The German interwiki de:Lausitzisch-Neumärkisch is a redirect to the interwiki of North Upper Saxon. The talk page of the last mentioned page is de:Diskussion:Nordobersächsisch-Südmärkisch. It casts great doubts on the concept of Lusatian – New Marchian dialects. Kind regards, Sarcelles (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language is a thing they speak. It is one of the ways to get ideas across. From where I live (no, not the northeast of Germany), I can tell you that dialects can be very localized (in the sense that about 10km away, the dialect is different). Also, some dialects have no written form, and esp. in German, there are many regional varieties (some as far away as Romania, Paraguay, Namibia,...). So if you think that this is not a valid entry we can delete it. On the other hand, the source cited is from 1970, over 50 years ago. Don't you think that in two generations, a language or dialect changes? - With the additional problem that likely no one records that change, as we are talking about a language that is mostly spoken, and not written down? - Note I am not a language scientist, and I live too far away from there to give first-hand evidence. Eptalon (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lusatian – New Marchian dialects is a very unusual word. Though taken by me from scholarly literature, it hardly is used outside numerous Wikipedias. de:Diskussion:Nordobersächsisch-Südmärkisch#Unbekannte Dialektgruppe is a discussion of the term. It was not started by me. Peter Wiesinger: Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. volume 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Studia Linguistica Germanica 2), p. 343/344 has the following division of South Markish: 1. From Mulde river to the former Sorbian area. 2. The formerly Sorbian area from Ruhland-Finsterwalde-Luckau-Buchholz to about Lusatian Neisse river 3. a formerly Low German area in the area of Oder and Warta rivers. p. 341 has Osterlandish around Leipzig and Anhaltian around Halle and Köthen among the varieties of Upper Saxon.
Apart from redirects, this term is used in neither the other English-language Wikipedia nor the German one. Additionally, my search of both the English and the German term on Commons yielded no results. Sarcelles (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict)  Then it must be some sort of neologism only used on Wikipedia. (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sarcelles: If we delete it, or replace it with a redirect, where should that redirect go? - As I understand, it is/was one of the dialects spoken "around Berlin". According to DEWP, all of them have been replaces by a "more standard" variety from Berlin. Don't askl me, I am not a linguist. If I look up "lausitz", big cities there are Kottbus (100k), Görlitz (57k, 87k if you also count the Polish part (Zgorelec), Bautzen (38k). Eptalon (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
South Markish is another word. Sarcelles (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
would it be better to use South markish/Südmärkisch then? I am not a linguist, and in the 50+ years since that publication, naming can change too. Is there a recent (since 2000 or so) publication that uses that classification? Eptalon (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chenzw bot reverting Edit

People keep reverting my additions of phylogenetic trees and simiplifications, I think, sinde chenzw bot is an automated program, it is making mistakes, sorry if I am not putting this discussion on WIkipedia:AN. (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at your edits to bird, the bot reverted typos, poor grammar. and unlinking/renaming of terms on an edit tagged for removing references.. I fail to see any problem there. Should I recheck your other recent edits to see if the bot is targetting you or if you are triggering it as you did on Bird? Pure Evil (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed refs removing complex sentences, typos and/or poor grammar could have been just fixed by another editor. (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Note: as a automated program, chenzwbot make mistakes. (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you are a human. They tend to make a lot more mistakes. Many of these are fixed by automatic programs. If you want it to stop fixing your errors, stop triggering it. YOU are causing it to clean up your mess. Pure Evil (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 (change conflict)  I have to say that chenzwbot is throwing the baby out with the bathwater! (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You probably should not expect the bot to search through pile of dung to see if someone left anything valuable in there. The job of the bot is to clean up crap, not mine for copper plated coins. And if that baby is drowned, bloated and reeking, it needs to go. Pure Evil (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it reverts some constructive edits >:( (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which are covered in offal and stink to high heaven. What little good is in them is massively overshadowed by the bad. Its a net win to remove the whole thing. A person could redo the entire edit to not suck entirely, but that requires manpower we do not have. The bot cleans up the obvious garbage without the (non available) manpower needed to pick through the mess for the random tidbits of actual useful info. Over all, the wiki is better without these edits than with them as the are more negative than positive. Pure Evil (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im trying to be helpful. (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Wizard Edit

I've had a look at our article wizard and it seems it's in need of an update. I'm going to take a look at it but if anyone else wants to help, hint hint, that'd be great. A specific problem that needs attention is the "Live Help Chat" button as it leads nowhere helpful. fr33kman 00:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did some copy editing of the pages. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks but we need to fix (or remove) that button. Can somebody with brains (ie: knows what they're doing) fix it? Please! fr33kman 04:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could have it link to the WP:DISCORD server. Bobherry Talk My Changes 10:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bobherry: What about people who don't use Discord, like me? It should probably link to this page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not everyone uses the IRC either and it can easily reveal peoples IP addresses. I think it should link to a new page that shows both of them and perhaps the helpme template and possibly suggest emailing some users. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sonia" Edit

When I would like a "Given name", moved to "Given name (singer)", what is the preferred simple way that it should be done.--The first issue is that I would like to translate the En-wiki (disambiguation) article (, to Simple-wiki.--"Sonia" links only to the article (in regard to mainspace-links). 2001:2020:30D:6231:CCB6:ECF7:A092:3635 (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you asking someone to move Sonia to Sonia (singer)? I can do that, if you want. You can't move pages, because you need to have an account and be autoconfirmed. Kk.urban (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move, without redirect? Yes, please (that is my question). 2001:2020:341:C4EB:75FE:6DC4:C132:3B81 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved the page with a redirect. Now just replace the redirect with a disambiguation page. Kk.urban (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, when you copy a page here, even a disambiguation page, please be sure to simplify the text. I just did some simplifying on this one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and if you are going to disambig two movies, name each one with the year. Sonia (1943 movie) and Sonia (1952 movie) not Sonis (movie) and Sonis (movie). Pure Evil (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TV production terms Edit

Im looking for alternate/parenthesis explanations for a few tv production terms.

Premier in the context of christmas special

Executive producer/producer

show runner

any thoughts? ~~~ OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: More context would help with some of these. If you mean premiere (note the E on the end -- a premier is a head of government) of a stand-alone special, you could use first broadcast, where "broadcast" is either a noun or an adjective, depending on how you use it. For example, instead of either "The special premiered on <date>" or "The special's premiere was on <date>, say "The first time the special was on television was on <date>".
For the others, I'd want to see an example sentence using the term. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article I'm trying to translate is [1] so that should provide context basicly its "blank" is the "blank" OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two simple, one not asmuch.
  • Premiere = broadcast for the first time. The link to broadcasting is there if they need it. That term is used since there is a link for it. I use it for the verb form of show/n and air as well as it is less ambiguous.
  • Producer exists. I can't confirm it covers the topic well, but as Executive producer redirects to it, I would guess it does. That should work for both terms.
  • Show runner is a bit trickier. It is not used frequently here. The term is used as a red link on one person and that red link is also targeted by 2 templates (doc pages) so a total of 5 uses. if I were to make a suggestion, it would be to make a section on Television program that covers the topic and have the red link redirect to that section. THere does not seem to be enough need for a full article so the section should cover it well enough.
Pure Evil (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking proxies Edit

Why do people block proxies. (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read m:No open proxies. MathXplore (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot use meta because of parental controls. (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just explain it to me in worde, why are proxies always blocked. (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
m:No_open_proxies#Rationale says "Because MediaWiki (the wiki software) depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, open proxies allow users to completely circumvent administrators. The use of scripts or unapproved bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing heavy disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns." (oldid) Does this answer your question? MathXplore (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So vandals circumvent blocks using open proxies.
But what is an "open" proxy. (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case "open" means "can be used by anyone". MathXplore (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed that we have a document like Wikipedia:Open proxies. MathXplore (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about categories for countries at association football competitions Edit

I've started a discussion at Category talk:Countries at association football competitions#Discussion of this category's great-grandchild categories. Your participation is invited and requested. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on the linked page. Thank you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we send a talkback to the involved IP editors? MathXplore (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose it wouldn't hurt. Do you know of an automated way to identify the IPs? I spot-checked 2 or 3 and it wasn't the same IP for all of them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if there is an automated way to do that, but I understand that these are coming from IPs starting from 2407. I think it's an IP that frequently changes their address, but the first 4 digits are always same. MathXplore (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just sent a talkback to the latest creator. I guess it is just one person making changes from this range. I see that most edits from the IPs starting from 2407 are category creations. If creations continue, then we may need to send another talkback to the latest IP. MathXplore (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Translating" articles Edit

Hello. I usually only do editing at English Wikipedia, but sometimes I read Simple English Wikipedia so I would like to help. Is it a helpful thing to "translate" some articles from English Wikipedia to Simple English Wikipedia, without changing the information but just changing the language used? Thank you for your help. -- NotCharizard 🗨 16:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and yes, we often take information from enwiki and use it to create articles here by ensuring that we simplify the language. An important point to express is that the language we use should be easily read by 12-16 year olds and the article understandable by non-experts in the subject. Key guidelines to read are; WP:SI, WP:HOW & WP:CW. Thanks for coming by to help us expand this important project and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! fr33kman 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer and for the links :) I tried to do a Simple English version of an article I wrote on English Wikipedia for practice. It is in my sandbox. Can you tell me if the language is appropriate? (I am not sure what to do about the headings though). -- NotCharizard 🗨 17:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article in your sandbox looks good. Because you are a new user you can't use page move to move it into mainspace so you can use copy & paste to move it. Thanks for coming to the Simple English Wikipedia! :) fr33kman 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their edit history here dates back at least until Apr 2022.. I don't think they are not still a new user here technically. Pure Evil (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of their having 9 edits since 2022. fr33kman 21:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the cut off 10? If so, they would be good just for being polite and posting a thank you. I tend to over look the number requirement as it is so easy to get past.. the time requirement at least is sort of something Pure Evil (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The archive box on this page is messed up Edit

For some reason, the archive box shows 161, 162, 163, and 164 in place of 151, 152, 153, and 154. However, the links go to the correct pages (151-154). All the other numbers are correct. This is so weird, can somebody fix it? Kk.urban (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Resolved. Thanks! Kk.urban (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon Edit

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no! Read-only!? Why??? (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The message explains why. the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. [...] Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. --Ferien (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, but that does not stop it being scary. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is it scary, may I ask? --Ferien (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pending changes protection on the administrator's noticeboard Edit

Why is the page in question pending changes protected, the page is rarely, if ever, vandalised. (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pending changes protection doesn't exist on this wiki so that is impossible. --Ferien (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So why can't I see my own changes after editing the administrator's noticeboard. (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot see my edits on the administrator noticeboard, why is that. (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issues you are having may be on your side. I have not seen you publish any edits to the admins noticeboard since before you posted this talk message. --Ferien (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three identical templates Edit

I believe they should be combined into one as they fulfil the same function? Solidest (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neptune is now a Very good article... Edit

Hello all, I just promoted Neptune to the status of Very Good Article. It is aomng the best this community can create. Thank you to all who contributed... Eptalon (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good. Bobherry Talk My Changes 18:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think this template could be adjusted to correctly list pages as guidelines, policies or neither? An explanation is on the talk page: Template talk:Wikipedia policies and guidelines Kk.urban (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is there not a qd criteria for this? (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

, nope, because once talk pages are created, there is no need for them to be deleted. Deleting them could discourage users from recreating them and starting discussions in the future. I occasionally delete talk pages created by banned users, and of course ones that do not have a corresponding main page, but that is all. --Ferien (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok thanks (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should there be a QD criteria for talk pages not having a corresponding main page, as the other case of talk page deletion is covered by G5. (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is qd G8 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien Auntof6 deleted talk pages because of talk create. is this not okay? if it is okay I think this should be qd criteria (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't do it myself, but of course, it's up to other admins to decide. I'll ping Auntof6 here if she wants to comment. It is worth noting that if it's the IP I'm thinking of, this is likely a case where talk pages were created for redirects that would probably never get comments, so it doesn't matter too much either way. --Ferien (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK no problem (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoax about leader of "Cabinet of ..."? Edit

This country in particular, might need attention, in regard to who is the leader.--Please move this post 'to a better place', once it has been established, that the article has no mistake (or 'no longer' has mistake) that is damaging to Simple-wiki, about who is the leader of that country.--If this post was helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:309:5DF3:C44B:47E0:9749:EC2F (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd recommend importing from enwiki and simplifying fr33kman 18:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Importing. Well, please take (another?) look at the complex English-wiki article. (Hint: "first deputy minister of ...", "second deputy minister of ...")--Additional recommendation: do not import any names, without checking the individual en-wiki articles, to ensure that the person is not listed there, as being previous minister.--Better yet: close this discussion here, and move it to relevant page. 2001:2020:331:F8AD:3CC2:D9A5:E884:1D00 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Done/  Done. (See ).--Regarding the En-wiki article: it seems that not all the incumbents, are correct.--Regarding the Simple-wiki article: no Hoax, however, our update is up to two months belated/'outdated'.--Can administrator (now), please close this discussion (and link to appropriate talk page)? Thank you in advance. 2001:2020:331:F8AD:3CC2:D9A5:E884:1D00 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Template Edit

Hey, can anyone tell me how to make a new template because I wanna make some related to 'bio-stubs'...!

And if there's any criteria like only administrators can make or other...? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question is very vague in that "how" to make a template depends heavily on what you want the template to do. Is it for navigation? does it need to just state something> does it react to parameters? does it do math? there are many many things a template can be used for. To make one, all of these things need to be looked at. The only constant is that they are put into the template namespace, but that is jumping the gun.
As to who can make one - There are no limits there. At first, the template should be worked out in the persons userspace to be certain it works as expected before being put into the template name space. It would also be a good idea to get outside opinions on the template before releasing it to ensure it is a good idea and there is a use for it.
depending on the technological needs for the template, the creator may want to limit what they personally are qualified to work with. For example, I have some experience with many parts of template creation but others (LUA) are beyond me so I do not work on templates that need those aspects. Pure Evil (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for the info btw it's just to state something... like the following:
{{Template:User citizen India}} Faraz Sualeh (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faraz Sualeh: As far as bio stub templates, or any stub templates. be aware that new stub templates need to be approved before being created. We don't keep as many kinds of stub categories here as English Wikipedia does. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh i see and what about Template:User citizen ..... (Country name) there are many templates of various countries that are not available like I need a template of Yemen🇾🇪 but it's not available so I wanna make so how can I...? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Faraz Sualeh: You can use an existing template as a pattern. If the template you want exists on English Wikipedia, you can copy it from there or ask the admins to import it for you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thanks✨ Faraz Sualeh (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking dates Edit

Back some time (over a decade past) is was decided that we would no longer link dates - neither year (1023) or day (13 October). Was an exception to this practice made for the chronological pages (ex. 2013 or August 1) as on them, all the dates, in either day or year format, are linked? Pure Evil (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I remember it, it was for years and dates (I've slept since then mind you) fr33kman 22:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, those have been exceptions. Our guideline says this
"Wikilinks: It is not necessary to add wikilinks to all dates, like this: "[[25 March]] [[2004]]" or "[[February 10]]"). Only add a wikilink if you think the reader will find useful information at the date-related article you have linked to."
Enwiki's guideline at en:WP:DATELINK gives more detailed information. Part of it says:
"However, in intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s), links to specific month-and-day, month-and year, or year articles are not discouraged."
I think the day articles are intrinsically chronological.
Hope that helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said! That's how I remember it as well. fr33kman 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So there is no actual opinions. Neither actually says anything. Our MoS says to link if you think is is a good idea so anyone can link any date anywhere if they think it could be useful. And En's words of wisdom are that they are not saying to not do it. They are not saying is should be done, only that they are not saying they are against it.. that useful. Neither says it is an exception to the way things are done, only that it is not disallowed to be an exception.
I could have sworn we formed the consensus to not link dates but the MoS states that is not the case - it is entirely a matter of personal choice under all circumstances. Pure Evil (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess since it's just hypertext in the end we might as well link what you want. Just so long as there are not more links than less links in the final version. I guess it's link if the result is a blue link, don't link if the result is a red-link. Or ... once again, the guideline is "do what you want" Surprise, surprise lol. fr33kman 01:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just tend to favor picking a stance and sticking to it yet these guidelines do not pick a side. Even as guidelines are only suggestions on how to do something which probably should be followed, I think they should actually suggest something.. as such Pure Evil (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed wording change Edit

What I suggest is to adjust for the following itea:

  • Generally speaking, linking dates should not be done unless such a link provides important information for the article. This applies to both years and days but not to specially named days (April Fools day, St Patrick's Day, etc)
  • chronologically based pages are except from this. Dates on these pages are normally linked.

Short, simple, do not do this, do do that. If further consensus is found to add other exceptions, that is easy to do.

This does not seem to change what our policy was intended to be. It also adheres to what the En. policy pretends to be, but it states directly what should be done or not done rather than remain very vague. Pure Evil (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary Edit

The page Snitch is a redirect to Harry Potter, but that's not the most common meaning of the word. Can I make it a soft redirect to Wiktionary? Kk.urban (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, a redirect to Wiktionary would not be appropriate. If we have other articles that use the word a disambiguation page could be made. Otherwise keep it as it is. We're an encyclopedia not a dictionary. :) fr33kman 19:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are the chances that if somebody searches "snitch", they're looking for something in Harry Potter? I think it's pretty low. But there are no articles here to disambiguate. So the redirect is harmful. Kk.urban (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I create a disambiguation page, somebody will probably delete it. Kk.urban (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think that the redirect is harmful then bring it to RfD but a link to another project is definitely inappropriate. fr33kman 19:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something tells me soft redirects to wiktionary have been done before. I may be thinking about enwiki. Can't find it at the moment, but I thought it may be worth putting that out there. --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm positive they have but I think it's wrong to do so. fr33kman 20:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that soft redirects to Wiktionary aren't a good idea because:
  • They hide red links that can help us see what articles we need.
  • Many English words have more than one meaning and people in our target audience could have difficulty figuring out which definition in the Wiktionary entry applies.
  • It makes readers have to go to another site to understand the article.
Better options, IMO:
  • Link to an appropriate article here, if there already is one.
  • Create an article here.
  • Use different, simple words in place of the linked term.
  • Leave the term redlinked.
Just my thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Officially there are three though there are likely many more that do not do so properly and so are not tracked. Category:Redirects to Wiktionary tracks those linked by the template but that seems to only be used 3 times so far. side note: there is also a cat (with matching template) for terms that need to be moved to wiktionary. Pure Evil (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot job Edit

Category:Taxoboxes with an unrecognised status system contains.. well the name say is. the cat has 270 some entries. The list is almost exclusively cases with IUNC 3.1Q listed as the system. Problem is that the system does not recognize that system. I spot checked several of the articles on En and each one was 3.1 which the system does accept. The change is simple for a bot or similar:

 replace: | status_system = IUCN3.1Q   <== what we have)
 with:    | status_system = IUCN3.1    <== what En says it should be)

there are a few articles in the cat that have other system name issues that will need a hands on approach but this will do most of the heavy lifting. Pure Evil (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, either a bot or other semi-automated method would be best. I don't fancy doing 270 manual edits by myself but if we could arrange 3-4 editors I'd be willing to do it manually. fr33kman 01:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done the 'A's. Need help or a bot. fr33kman 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Windows Home Server Edit

Should we delete the page since it is a disambiguation page without any relevant articles existing on this wiki?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modified version of Twinkle. Edit

A few weeks ago on Discord, I raised an issue about the simplewiki-Twinkle bug. First, I fixed the problematic twinkle rollback on the user's contribution page. Today I fixed a few things about the error message when reverting. See the second link for more information. I tested it on test2wiki, but more testing is needed. Until mediawiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js is fixed, please test my fix to make sure there are no errors. Please paste the following code into Special:MyPage/common.js.

mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.util', 'jquery.ui']).then(function() {
	return mw.loader.getScript('');
}, function(err) {
}).then(function() {
	return mw.loader.getScript('기나ㅏㄴ/test.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
}, function(err) {

You will need to turn off Twinkle in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. I hope my fix is helpful to SimpleWiki:) Thank you --ginaan(T/C) 15:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK Queues Edit

I would like to propose that we add an eighth queue. The holding area currently has about 3-4 queues worth of hooks, and this number is increasing more than it is decreasing. We need another queue to hold some of these hooks. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you need another queue? Instead of that you could update it more often when there are more hooks, and at the current speed when there are less hooks, without needing to post here every time the speed changes. So either 2,3, or 4 times a month depending on available backlog. As long as 4-5 queues remain full at all times, it shouldn't be a problem. Kk.urban (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a very good idea! So, to clarify, the admins would update it faster when the backlog is bigger? That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, exactly! Kk.urban (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's increasing because I'm back ... yeah! fr33kman 16:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]