Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 140

< Wikipedia:Simple talk


Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review

Hello everyone,


The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the Universal Code of Conduct across the movement. Comments about the guidelines can be shared here or the Meta-wiki talk page.

There will be conversations on Zoom on 4 February 2022 at 15:00 UTC, 25 February 2022 at 12:00 UTC, and 4 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC. Join the UCoC project team and drafting committee members to discuss the guidelines and voting process.

The timeline is available on Meta-wiki. The voting period is March 7 to 21. See the voting information page for more details.

You can read the full announcement here. Thank you to everyone who has participated so far.


Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flood tag for categorization

May I have the flood tag for a while ? I want to make several container categories like "People from (US city) by occupation". MathXplore (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will add flood and watch. --Ferien (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: I'm done with the categorization, thank you for the flood tag. MathXplore (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact spatnaik wikimedia.org.

Deadminship

With no new comments since the 31st, I'd say its time we move forward before this gets archived and forgotten about. The summary provided below by Griffinofwales seems to be accurate. With nearly an even split on the options for re-naming, and no objections to either option, we can safely move forward with following en's lead and using a hyphen. With no objections to proposal number 2, the old requests should also be re-named.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deadmanship. Exactly. You read that wrong at least once too. While Request for Deadminship doesn't happen very often here, the name is, at best, unfortunate. I'm writing to the Simple English community today to present two proposals that are related.

Proposal #1 Obtain community consent to rename the request to Request for Removal of Admin. Another possibility is Request for Admin Discharge as "discharge" is on the BE 1500 list. Or something else entirely as decided by the community.
Proposal #2 If a new title is selected in Proposal #1, should existing Requests for Deadminship be moved to the new title?

Thank you all who participate and, please remember, this is an open discussion. There are no wrong answers. Operator873 connect 05:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, seeing as there seems to be a reasonable amount of support for just adding a hyphen in deadminship to make de-adminship, I have added a proposal 3 section below to see who wants this. Proposal 3 would be to rename the request to Requests for de-adminship (just adding the hyphen) Thank you --Ferien (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Comments

For what it's worth, enwiki calls it en:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, adding a hyphen after the prefix. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good possibility as well. Operator873 connect 05:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would probably just match en.wiki in this case and renaming the pages makes sense and isn't that hard, there aren't too many of them. Discharge while on the simple list I think is a bit ambiguous as to what it would mean in that instance. -Djsasso (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 However, this is not enwiki but simplewiki. SoyokoAnis - talk 15:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do however, take many things like this from enwiki. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso Very true. SoyokoAnis - talk 18:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnis: I'm very aware of that. I'm one of the people who often points that out to others. There are times where there is a good reason to match things here to enwiki (such as article names), and when that's the case I usually say why I think we should match. Here, though, I mentioned it only because it's a viable solution to the issue. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follow en.wp standard - simple and clear. Griff (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I like the hyphen. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deadminship tends to come accross too easily as dead man ship... Either dash/en dash it or something like "Request for removal of Admin rights" as you arent actually removing the admin themself, just their rights as admin (Im a former admin/crat/CU -my decision to give them up- .. former right holder but still a user. Only my rights were removed.) --Creol(talk) 20:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Deadmanship" feels like one of those early-days turns of phrase that probably sounded cute and funny at the time, like an in joke. It's had its day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think removal of adminship or removal of rights is probably better. Also note that any admin is free to step down, at any time. Removal does not have ot be linked to a wrongdoing, or error. For me, discharge has too much of a military connotation.--Eptalon (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: At this point this discussion has been open for over 2 weeks and I believe that the community has had a chance to express their thoughts. Of those here, we are in agreement that the name of the process should be changed and no one has opposed changing the titles of previous requests. In terms of !votes, there are 5 users clearly in favor of Removal of adminship (or a similar term), and 6 users clearly in favor of Requests for de-adminship. That's a fairly even split and the arguments for both sides are convincing. Noting that I have expressed my opinion on this topic, I believe that because the community is split, so we should use our existing guideline regarding administrative policies and procedures and follow enWP's example on this issue, renaming all past and future requests to Requests for de-adminship. Assuming no other thoughts are provided on the matter, an administrator would be nice to formally close this discussion. Griff (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Leadership Development Task Force: Your feedback is appreciated

The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Task Force. The purpose of the task force is to advise leadership development work.

The team is looking for feedback about the responsibilities of the Leadership Development Task Force. This Meta page shares the proposal for a Leadership Development Task Force and how you can help. Feedback on the proposal will be collected from 7 to 25 February 2022.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually glad I found this on SEWP and not somewhere else. @Zuz (WMF): in simple English, what is leadership development? I read the page and one of its sub-pages and it looks like meaningless corp-speak. What is the problem that this task force is meant to solve, or at least the problem that inspired its proposal? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasting speeches to Swami Vivekananda‎

There is an editor who wants to copy paste whole speeches to this page. The editor claims it is not copyrighted, but I do not agree to this claim and the necessity to add a super long speech text to here. The speech texts matches to this website. I would like to ask others if this edit is OK or not. MathXplore (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore: I don't think that speeches are copyrighted, if that speech was copyrighted it would already be in the public domain by now, but I do think it's a little lengthy for a simple wiki article. DingoTalk 15:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, looks like we must think how to minimize the speech. MathXplore (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Griff has removed the speeches. MathXplore (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aude communes

is there a bot to place the template to its related articles? :) it's too much and tiresome when do it by hand. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 434 articles in Category:Communes in Aude. That should be all of them. Easy enough for a bot or AWB user to target that cat and just append the template to each article. Just have to ask nicely for one of those folk to help out. --Creol(talk) 23:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad: I'll work on this. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad: It's done. Let me know if you see any issues. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh @Auntof6 thank you very much, i really appreciate your efforts. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad: No problem. It was easy to set up AWB to do most of the work. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

On WP:START why is there "Become an administrator."

The process of becoming one is not easy, so why is it on the start page? SoyokoAnis - talk 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Fixed. Griff (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox link

I'm holding a global RFC regarding Sandbox link (example) at Meta: m:Requests for comment/Enable sandbox for all Wikipedias. I was told by User:Lucas Werkmeister that Simple English Wikipedia as a large project does not have Sandbox link enabled.

  • Does Simple English Wikipedia want the Sandbox link enabled?

If there is consensus for enabling that on Simple English Wikipedia, I will do that as part of the global settings. But if Simple English Wikipedia does not want that, I can simply omit the Simple English Wikipedia from my proposal. No hard feelings at all :) I have personally not found Sandbox links harmful in any way, shape, or form. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd love to have the user sandbox linked. Most of my work is done on the sandbox before moving it to the main article namespace, so having this as a link would be very useful. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like it, I don't use the sandbox enough due to the lack of this. 💠Ely - Talk💠 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌───┘
 (Advertisement) FWIW, I wrote a simple script for ones like the two above; paste this to your common.js page and enjoy:

{{subst:lusc|User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/SandboxLink.js}}

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a gadget you can enable that will put the link there as well. I didn't go look but I recall there was at one point. Either way it should be left up to the individual and not done on an every user basis, especially not an every wiki every user basis. -Djsasso (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should make it clear I don't believe it should be automatically linked for everyone. People should enable the link if they desire it, as can currently be done. -Djsasso (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article

Clinking on the link to create an article simply brings me to a page about suggesting articles. What happened to being able to create an article directly? Kdammers (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what do you mean by that? As an example, by clicking on Ginza Tokyo I can create the article.... --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 04:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers: Can you please specify the name of the page that suggests articles? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Can you explain what you mean by "suggests articles"? On Wikipedia:Requested pages people can list articles they would like to see created. Special:WantedPages lists pages that don't exist but are linked by other pages. Is either of those what you meant? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: You meant to ask Kdammers, not? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 08:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: I guess I did. Sorry about that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AWB task needed

Errors are flagged for template {{infobox person}} when the parameter |residence= is used. These pages are added to Category:Infobox person using residence. As of posting, over 800 pages in there. Could someone with AWB be so kind as to remove the parameter and clear that backlog?--Creol(talk) 15:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently not able to access AWB but when I can I will take acloser look at it --Ferien (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: I am doing this now. --Ferien (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Working on fixing reference dates now. 2400 pages there and not AWB friendly.. Ill be busy for a while. Then again there were atleast that many in the uncat list before I revamped that thing so kind of business as usual for me. --Creol(talk) 16:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: FWIW, I think you can fix those yyyy-m-d dates using regexes. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and yes, "mmm dd yyyy"s too. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem im seeing alot of is in the variety of the error formats. mm/dd/yyyy. dd/mm/yyyyy, extra info )[last update]), missing info {May 198), yyyy-mm-dd missing leading 0s, etc.. they veriety is staggering. Some of it could be botted but so much needs a personal touch. --Creol(talk) 20:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: Fortunately #time can deal with multiple variants of formats. Simply put variables into it, like {{subst:#time:Y-m-d|1988-1-1}} (outputs 1988-01-01) or, more complex, {{subst:#iferror:{{subst:#time:Y-m-d|05 18 1992 [whatever]}}|05 18 1992 [whatever]|{{subst:#time:Y-m-d|05 18 1992 [whatever]}}}} (outputs 05 18 1992 [whatever] since #time can't render the format). That being said, AWB will do replaces that won't cause problems and null-edits otherwise. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plus side here - With eyes on each page, I taking care of a host of other citing issues on many of these pages that likely would never get any attention otherwise. Many are over a decade old... Though I would not be against someone taking a pass on Category:CS1 errors: dates and just nuking away "[last update]". That thing is very popular in the year feild. --Creol(talk) 22:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: "[last update]" is not that common, in fact. There are only 285 articles that need some replacing, and with A/JWB they will be cleaned in the blink of an eye. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────┘
 I forgot that subst: cannot be parsed in ref tags... (where's the CWS2022 page for it?) That being said, you need to convert <ref>...<ref> to {{subst:#tag:ref|...}} as well.

I think I've done around 150 pages, still a lot to go but internet is crappy probably due to the effects of this so can't promise to finish it this weekend. --Ferien (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Do you need a hand? I'm quite free and only need flood flag if approved. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Hey, it's 10:26pm where I am so I am probably going to finish up quite soon, but there will still be hundreds to go (even though I've done around 400 of them). Feel free to request on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and I will reply :) --Ferien (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: And it's about... 5:28 am in UTC+7. I don't need AWB access to use JWB. Forking it is inarguably easier than requesting for access on all wikis, even when I know nearly nothing about JS. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────┘
 Hopefully I won't misuse my GR... NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: I am still going to be around (just not on AWB). You can be trusted not to misuse flood (and I'll be watching you anyway, as that is the requirement per WP:FLOOD). Do you want this granted now? --Ferien (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Yes, absolutely. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────┘
   Done On average I made 1 edit every 1 second, and since wgRateLimits is 90 edits/60 seconds for autoconfirmed users I believe GR was not misused. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flood rights revoked. Thanks so much for your help! --Ferien (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. There were a couple issues where refs were defined in that parameter so they got broken in the process but thats been handled. --Creol(talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month: We are back in 2022!

 

Please help translate to your language

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the second edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 17 February to 17 March 2022. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that made a contribution to world culture. The most active contesters will receive prizes.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia!--ValentynNefedov (WMUA) (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think given the current situation, this is a good initiative, and a meaningful thing to do. I want to remind you that this Wikipedia is small, so:
  • If there are people contributing, this Wikipedia needs to be added to the list of languages (where you suggest different articles to translate)
  • If this is successful, I'd expect a cooperation of some kind (that editors from WMUA also contributing content to this Wikipedia)
To my knowledge, Ukraine is the biggest country that is wholly in Europe. It has a rich cultural heritage. So I think bringing some of the content here is certainly worth the effort. Eptalon (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki importer

hello all, i want to request Transwiki importer; i need the tool to import only Templates and Modules from English Wikipedia; i also clarify that i am familiar with the tool and know how it works as i use it on other wiki as well,

it's a discussion to know community's opinion about me   Thank you 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didin't realized you had posted here as well so the following is what I replied on Ferien's talk page: Importer is a very dangerous tool. For non-admins it is generally much preferred that they just do copy pastes with attribution. It is very easy to make very difficult to fix mistakes that become that much harder to fix if you are not an admin. I would strongly advise just following the copy/paste method of importing that pretty much all non-admins use. I especially would be hesitant when it is templates/modules they want to do it with. If there is something you want brought over you can even just ask me. -Djsasso (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage templates

Would it be a bad idea to make a template specifically to navigate my userpage and for no other reason? I saw something similar on enwiki, but (a)it was a while ago and I could be misremembering and (b)the rules may be different on simple. I don't want to create something that will just be deleted. Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UP says nothing about having a navigation template for one's subpages, but I think you can be bold, since, say, personal userboxes are generally allowed. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrMeAndMrMe: I don't see why not. If it's just for you, though, you might want to keep it in your userspace. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March

Please help translate to your language
 

Greetings from Wiki Loves Folklore International Team,

We are pleased to inform you that Wiki Loves Folklore an international photographic contest on Wikimedia Commons has been extended till the 15th of March 2022. The scope of the contest is focused on folk culture of different regions on categories, such as, but not limited to, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, etc.

We would like to have your immense participation in the photographic contest to document your local Folk culture on Wikipedia. You can also help with the translation of project pages and share a word in your local language.

Best wishes,

International Team
Wiki Loves Folklore

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New bot job

Im good at finding things to do then realizing a bot could handle them much easier. As CitationBot is coming online here and should handle the citation dating issue in a fraction of the time I could do it in, I went out looking for the next project. In addition to just wikifying pages as needed (June 2014 done) I found Category:Pages using infobox movie with unknown empty parameters with about 600 pages with infobox issues. I cleared the 1's and the As (mostly) but there is a ton left for some bored bot to scour through and clear up the bad parameters in. --Creol(talk) 20:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can scan through and see if I can have them fix the infoboxes up. Generally though the preferred "fix" for any of the unknown parameters categories is to change the parameters to the new ones (if there are any) or to just leave the page in this category so those that want to do so can in the future, they are more tracking categories than they are error categories. That being said this one is for empty parameters so no needing to change to new params in this case. -Djsasso (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed mostly by updating infobox template. And a few by adding a missing underscore. -Djsasso (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just seeing the errors makes ne itchy.. Wether the fix is actuallly noticable or not, just seeing the error warnings get clear calms the itch. OCD of a wikignome. --Creol(talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor - Problem with Source Citer

Hello. On the Visual Editor, when we click the "Automatically cite a source" option, it gives back an error saying it cannot do so. Does anyone else have the same problem? Tsugaru let's talk! :) 21:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the same problem, and I believe Haoreima, Kolva and others have had the same problem as well. It's been going on since December of last year now, does any one of our more technical editors know what the problem is/how to solve it? --Ferien (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have been meaning to take a look. I am not sure what all is involved with it. But I will see if I can figure it out. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have it working. If is not for you let me know. -Djsasso (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works now. What was the problem? Thank you Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I told you then you wouldn't think I was magical. I am not 100% sure as I changed a few things, but it seemed to start working after I null edited the citation module. So likely a caching issue. -Djsasso (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir! I want to remind you something while you are looking into the matter. Citation tool perfectly works for websites like Google Books and archive.org, while it completely fails to work for news websites, other websites. This is my experience for the last 4-5 months. I am a daily user of citoid.
Thank you Ferien for reminding me. At the same time, @MusikAnimal (WMF): Sir! Could you please help us to overcome this matter? It has been a serious problem to many of us for the last few months. If possible, let's fix it once and for all! Haoreima (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso fixed the issue.... --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 03:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Celebration time kolva | chat? 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portals

At this time we dont use portals here. The problem with this is people bringing content from other wikis dont tend to remove the portal templates. We have/had over 1100 pages with the template on them. Thats a lot of requested template calls. I Created the template to inform users that we dont use them and to remove the one on that page. It also categorized them to Category:Pages with Portal templates. Here in is the problem. That category has 1100+ entries with a simple need - remove that template. This seems like a bot job to me. Anyone willing to sick their bot/AWB to the task? Just grab the list from the cat and remove all {{portal}} calls from the pages. Fairly straight forward task; just time consuming by hand. --Creol(talk) 19:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the entries here were cats which were caused by a host of templates in the est/disest cat trees. These are being dealt with but there are still a hundred+ articles that need tending. Not as bad as first seen but still an issue. (working on clearing the cats. Propagation delays are slowing things down) --Creol(talk) 20:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: I'm just trying to get AWB up now. --Ferien (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also issues with a missing Module:Navseasoncats with centuries below decade but I tossed that isse at Djsasso as he is the one central to that problem. Mod deleted as depreciated but still called for. --Creol(talk) 20:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that there are only about 50 of these left, not counting userpages (presumably drafts), so I'm working on them. I can do the user pages as well, if we can get consensus that it's OK to do them without getting individual permission (there are quite a few). -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Auntof6, I tried going through the rest of those pages but it skipped automatically for me for some reason (Not sure why, I am not very experienced with AWB) --Ferien (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: In a few cases for me, AWB found no changes which I think was because the call was in a template (I removed it from 2 or 3 templates before I started. Maybe you're telling AWB to skip if no changes are made? I took care of the issue by doing a save from AWB even if there were no changes -- AWB allows null edits like that.
There are 44 user pages currently using the template. Do you think it's OK to take care of those? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Yes, this was the issue, thanks for pointing it out. I don't think the userpages are too big of a deal either way, if they turn into articles, obviously portals won't be on them, but at the same time, these drafts have existed for a while and so they're probably not going to get published anyway. --Ferien (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally my take on user space pages that are in cleanup categories is that they should be left alone as they are in userspace. Unless the error is affecting something outside of userspace. For example deactivating categories while a draft is in userspace. Otherwise there is no issue as the portals in this case would be removed once it went to mainspace. There is no harm in making the change of course, but there is not really much benefit either other than removing the page from the category. -Djsasso (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to ba an act now, defend/appologize for my actions later type of person.. As such, if the person isnt active I tend to have less qualms of nudging their pages.If they arent here, they wont notice. With the double call work I just finished up, there were a lot of sandbox article that needed attention. Helping my call was the fact that most were last edited by the user from 2008-2014 and the users havent been active in some time. As it was unlikely I would need to explain the actions I was more free handed with resetting "sandboxes". If they took offense they could always revert mebut it was not likely they would ever even notice.I see that same mindset applying here. --Creol(talk) 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: OK. I was going to remove them, but I see that you're doing it so I'll stop. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6, Feel free. I got 350+ lawyers I can do time with.. I bounce around a lot --Creol(talk) 00:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: OK, all done. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Creol(talk) 00:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if possible, but maybe nuke delete all articles with that template. SoyokoAnis - talk 20:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnis: All the articles with {{portal}} have now been cleared of the template, but why would we want to nuke them? (I assume you're meaning delete the article, not the portal template) --Ferien (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien (For some reason, I didn't receive a notif for the ping.) Why not delete the portal template? We don't use them as per the original poster. SoyokoAnis - talk 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnis: Creol created the template to show when there was an error and to put these pages into the category. --Ferien (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Thanks. SoyokoAnis - talk 04:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

Given how often sections of articles are brought over from other languages only to get classified in an error cat because of missing refs. I tossed together an essay to cover the problem, commmon causes, and fixes. Could someone (or a few someones} look over Wikipedia:Dealing with broken references and let me know it 1. It makes sence. 2. Its reasonably easy to understand. 3. It can be generally helpful for newer editors. --Creol(talk) 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited a bit. It's a technical article but has good examples. Is there perhaps a better way to express "calls", as in the template calls this parameter? Griff (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally "refer" would likely be a more accurate term but as its about references, I think using refer and reference repeatedly would just make it harder to get. I tried to help it out a bit with the terms section near the top explaining the types of references. Think I should try to expand that a bit to make it easier to understand? --Creol(talk) 18:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works. I would recommend changing the title to "Fixing broken references". I'll do another once over here shortly. Griff (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flagiconb

I've been going through errors in images recently and stumbled on an issue. pretty much all the errors Im clearing are hidden ones ie. bad code but doesnt affect the display - thumb + a size setting or two. I traced the problem on a large number of these faults to the template {{flagiconb}}. There lies the problem. That template was created back in 2007 and never changed It also is only used by us. {{flagicon}} which was also use is what gets the use elsewhere. Our copy of it was updated some time last year so its fairly fresh and seems error free while something is off with the B variant we use. My questions are these - Is there a reason we use Flagiconb? can what we have be tweaked to remove the issue? {somehow it it passing a "," to images but I cant see it..) could we just to redirect the template to {{flagicon}}? Should we go through all the transclusions and retarget them each to use the non-b version? Questions, comments, ideas? for the list of errors: Special pages => lint errors => medium priority: Bogus file options => namespace: article => submit. (end target) --Creol(talk) 05:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In cases like this usually we redirect if possible, otherwise we will have to do the changes manually by page. But yes typically since we have a better newer template we would switch to that. Let me see how easily it can be done. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hah, I haven't looked at the code yet, but there is only 45 pages using it, so even just switching over to the other template and then deleting this one as deprecated should be easy. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fix was actually even easier than that, its was only used on a couple templates and a couple pages....so most of the uses of it went away when the templates were updated. So it is no longer being used. I am going to redirect incase anyone tries to use it still. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic bot template for locations in Poland

I'd like to ask the administrators for input regarding a problematic situation, which I identified on many Poland stub articles for towns and villages. It appears that the original template used by a bot to generate the stub articles, included a very POV-ish stand alone statement: "Before 1945 the area was part of Germany." (example: [1]) This statement is present in hundreds of stub articles. Also, I would like to note that in itself the statement is not incorrect, however given the fact that many of those places changed hands multiple times though their history, to just have this one stand alone blurb lacking any further historical context is extremely unsettling and creates undue weight issues within the stub article. My question is how can this be remedied, on a large scale, by either adding a bit more historical context, or removing it completely. --E-960 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is from the Emglish wikipedia not here. Are you in the correct place with this question? We do not have an article on the location you are pointing out but may have issues on another Poland stub.. Could you point out an article here with this probem? If the probem is not here, you need to bring it up on the English wikipedia. --Creol(talk) 18:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this was on the standard Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the right venue to ask is enwiki NPOV noticeboard. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 18:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon

Several improvements around templates

Hello, from March 9, several improvements around templates will become available on your wiki:

All these changes are part of the “Templates” project by WMDE Technical Wishes. We hope they will help you in your work, and we would love to hear your feedback on the talk pages of these projects.

- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA consonant chart

{{IPA consonant chart}} is getting annoying. While hunting for extra table tags on a list of articles, I traced an issue to this template. With Just the template on a page, the page shows up on the error list. When the template is replaced with its contents, no list entry. Subst: the templage, no error. The error (table tag that needs deleted) is on every page that uses the IPA nav box that calls this template. The error is in this exact sub-temp but its not... Someone mind taking a look and seeing if im going crazy.

  • Error list used for testing - here
  • test page with the error - error
  • test page with out the errir - no error
  • All articles with the table errors, Those with this particular cause are tagged as IPA navigation (all but 1) -full list

Any help is appreciated. --Creol(talk) 20:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Creol: I'm not sure if I get the whole thing, but I removed table markups ({|, |- etc.) and your sandbox no longer appear in Special:LintErrors/deletable-table-tag. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how it works, why it works or why it didnt work for me.. but I can live with PFM (pure f'ing magic) since the pages are fine and there is no more errors.. Thanks --Creol(talk) 23:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template was only directly used on one page, and then linked to from another template so used indirectly on others. Long since redirected on en.wiki to a template we also already had here so I have redirected to that template here as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox album

Found another issue, it seems.. {{infobox album}} gets a lot of use here. There are 1000-1500 articles linking back to it. If there is a problem here, its expected to be an annoying one to clean. And thats the issue. The infobox was built not to be stupid. There are things it knows to expect and it acts accordingly. One point of importance when dealing with albums is that there name is in italics. It knows this. When posting the next and last album, it automatically changes the title to deal with this. The problem is that most people dont know this. As such many album pages pass the link for the next and last album with italics. And the system adds it italics so we get a ''' (bold) + '. And most people never even notice the bolded link sitting there. The system notices this though. Consistancy is an issue here. Some people know it is added, others dont so it is not all pages with the issue and just changing the template to not add the marks doesnt fix the issue. On most of the pages, it also isnt the only italic on the page though it tends to be the only ones in the infobox so we need a bot with enough self control to only edit the boxes. --Creol(talk) 03:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Creol: Before I go and look, I don't supposed to checked to see if the enwiki version handles this the same way? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked 10 albums at random on En. None had the parameters linked. This is not to see that the template itself does or does not strip the tags only that the few I picked did not have the tags on them. --Creol(talk) 04:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Creol: If there are only a thousand of transclusions, I guess I can try. First, modify the template so that pages with italicized album titles will be categorized into a tracking cat. Second, perform null edits with a bot so that we won't have to wait for the server queue. Third, use regex to deal with, hopefully, most of them. Finally, manually fix the rest (i.e. the edge cases). May be a bit too optimistic but that's basically it. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And about the false count by {{High-risk}}, can we just revert the template to the last version in which we update transclusion count manually? Without Module:Transclusion count/data being updated weekly by bots the template is quite useless. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I keep meaning to get the bot running for the high risk template. Just haven't gotten around to it yet. You can still update manually the numbers even in the new version, but yes I will roll back for now. That being said the transclusion count even when done manually on this wiki was almost never correct. I just generally remove the count when I see it on the doc pages and think about it. -Djsasso (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I got pretty much all of them I think. There are almost definitely the odd one out there that got missed because it wasn't formatted the same way. But that should go a long way to helping. -Djsasso (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Manually going through and getting the outliers. Seeing 2 areas that slipped thru and the problem that I brought up on you user page earlier. Looks like you were scanning for the marks and brackets as unlinked album title can slip by bujt those need to be linked for the most part anyway so I can do that on a manual pass. Also a few where everything is on one line.. some of them slipped by with only a partial cleaning. But all said its a whole lot less work then at first so thanks again for the heavy lifting. --Creol(talk) 03:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was fixing the unlinked ones as I noticed them but I am positive I missed a bunch of those. It was drastically harder to try and have it automatically fix the ones without links. I was thinking I would run another pass through them for unlinked ones tomorrow because its getting late here, but if you are taking a look at them I might not need to. -Djsasso (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years categorization

Recently I have been wondering what exactly should and shouldn't be added in the Simple Wiki as for categories concerning years. It's not actually specified anywhere except for brief mentions in talk pages. Perhaps it ought to be necessary to get a consensus and make an actual page on it because this is one of the few things that the Simple Wiki does not follow. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMeAndMrMe: Our practice in this area hasn't been specifically documented. I know that categories for individual years and for years of birth and death (along with any needed parent categories to support those) have been exceptions to the three-entry rule, if that's what you're thinking about; our practice has been that those categories can be created even if there's only one entry.
I'm not sure if that addresses what you're thinking about. When you say "things that the Simple [English] Wiki does not follow", what exactly are you referring to? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am not sure what exactly it is you are referring too. In general for our year categories, if en.wiki has it we have it. There is a rule of thumb (though not actually a rule) that most categories shouldn't be created unless you have at a bare minimum 3 articles (though ideally many more). But for categories that are chronological, or by country or things like that we generally don't go by the rule of thumb which is why its only a rule of thumb and not an actual rule. Our goal like everything else on this wiki is to be a simple as possible, so in general we will target having only those categories we absolutely need (ie the parent category got too big so we had to split it down to sub categories). The language we use on our project pages should be simple like the articles, we should have less project pages than en.wiki because we try to keep our guidelines/policies simplier and have less of them which is why we have the all encompassing WP:FOLLOW. -Djsasso (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guestbook

I wish to create a guestbook but I feel like it's sockpuppeting because when I want to create it Wikipedia will give me a message that reads Wikipedia does not have a user page with this name. Before starting this page, please see m: Subpages.

To start a page called User:Yahoot7/Guestbook, just type in the box below. You can click the "Show preview" button to see how it looks, at any time before you save it. When you are finished, just click "Publish changes". To learn more about starting and writing articles, read the instructions, try the Article Wizard, or check the links listed in Wikipedia:Useful. If you want to make test changes, please use the sandbox. If you have just started a page here, you might not be able to see it yet because it takes a while for the database to update; please wait a few minutes and click this link. If a page used to be here with the same name, it will be listed below here. If you are bringing an article from another Wikipedia, you must attribute the source per Creative Commons Attributions/Share-Alike and/or GFDL. A Guidebook is available. Administrators: You may Import this page. so I sometimes think it is sockpuppeting is that true? Yahoot7 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is when you (secretly) use another account to do things that make the wiki worse. That text is only shown when you are trying to access a page that has not been created or was deleted, which is clearly the case when you are creating a subpage of yours. Just ignore it: you are not creating another account, hence no sockpuppetry. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages not connected to items filter

Pages not connected to items is extensively long, reaching 10,000 pages in for created in only 2019. A lot of these pages are things like requests for deletion or .js or .css files. I think it would be helpful to create a filter for this. Is this possible? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, its built in to the software. Only really the namespace filter at the top of it. Which will remove a lot of what you mention. -Djsasso (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of it are things that can't or shouldn't be linked like category redirects. Other are things that don't really need to be linked (though obviously would be good if they were) like document pages for templates. A lot are things that there isn't a known item for (ie we split out a page that other languages didn't). We used to have someone that kept it completely clean of what could easily be linked. Not sure how often it gets gone through now. I know most of the stuff I create is linked very quickly, often before I even have a chance to link it myself. -Djsasso (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at only those pages in the Article namespace, the number drops way down to only 87. This includes new pages, redirect and current RfDs. Yes, all pages should be linked but main space pages are the ones which would actually matter and they seem to be under control. As to the others, I get alerts almost daily of categories and templates I created getting added so work there is constantly on going. --Creol(talk) 18:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that list is a great place to track articles that need to be put up for deletion. If the bots cant find a match some one may want to look at them to see if notabily is the reason and not just doing things our way. --Creol(talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, even though things here are getting connected, they aren't always connected properly. I had a conversation with the operator of Pi bot about this (see the last section here). I had seen the bot create new Wikidata items for new articles here, even when there was an existing Wikidata item to connect the articles to. Because of this, it would be good if more people took care of Wikidata connections before the bot gets to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the merging of duplicate items is something that is an ongoing task on Wikidata. While obviously its better if it happens before it gets there, it does eventually get updated to match. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback about the Board of Trustees elections

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed. This Call ran from 10 January and closed on 16 February 2022. The Call focused on three key questions and received broad discussion on Meta-wiki, during meetings with affiliates, and in various community conversations. The community and affiliates provided many proposals and discussion points. The reports are on Meta-wiki.

This information will be shared with the Board of Trustees and Elections Committee so they can make informed decisions about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees will then follow with an announcement after they have discussed the information.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Call for Feedback to help improve Board election processes.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful but not

Hello. I was recently wondering about how to manage a recent particular edit in Minecraft. Part of this edit is helpful. The majority of this edit, however, should be reverted. Should I revert this edit entirely, ignore it, or do something else? An edit like this would be difficult to go through and individually add or delete all revert-worthy individual parts because there is small parts sprinkled throughout it and I could easily miss something while going through it. Thanks, MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do is make two tabs. On tab 1 load the old revision (so you are changing the version before the one with all the mistakes), and then add the positive changes that you can see from the diff that you have on tab 2. Make sure to add a change summary and let me know if you need help! Griff (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time for SIMPLE to consider Sighted versions. --Tarawneh (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just say "No" to Sighted versions (they work fine on German-wiki - however we have nowhere near their manpower/womanpower).--Troll factorys and some ordinary users might think its a good idea, for Simple-wiki. 89.8.147.114 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what are sighted versions? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 06:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You flag a certain page history as Sighted; usually a clean copy with no visible problems. If someone edits the page, the new un-Sighted version will not be displayed. Only the last Sighted page version in the history will be visible to the normal visitors. Still all the history is maintained. This will prevent another Minecraft incident, and will give the community the time needed to fix the pages without having to do a full revert. For actual contributor doing the editing, he will be able to edit and save as usual. His browser will display his edited version, not the Sighted. This is also very handy when SIMPLE is under attack; the attacker will get the impression that his attack is successful and leave the site faster. --Tarawneh (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea(though Minecraft was not directly vandalised). MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floating lakes

There is currently (or was) a content dispute involving the term "floating lakes" at Keibul Lamjao National Park and Loktak Lake which has resulted in edit warring and accusations being made on both sides.

  • The question is, should we use the term "floating lake" to refer to Loktak Lake on articles?
    • On one side, several Indian sources describe this lake as a "floating lake" and SHB2000's argument is that we should use the local version of English (Indian English) when describing the lake.
    • On the other side, users (such as Macdonald-ross, Norwegian IP) have described the floating lake terminology as "nonsense".

While I have my own thoughts, I'm bringing this issue to the greater community for their thoughts. Note: Administrators (such as myself) will enforce any edit warring during this content dispute with blocks until the community decides on how to proceed. Pinging participants SHB2000, Macdonald-ross, MrMeAndMrMe, and Haoreima, with Ferien as the protecting administrator. Griff (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The people who say "it's nonsense" has no reliable sources to support their statement. At the same time, it's not only Indian sources, but also BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) website as well as NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) websites supporting the fact. I don't think BBC and NASA are nonsense. Am I wrong? Haoreima (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floating island [2], is a relevant article at English-wiki (and that Indian lake is not the world's only in regard to floating islands).--For junk-science terminology used outside American-English and British-English: "floating lake" is a good candidate.--In regard to outer space, and any type of "floating lake" on other planets - that phrase is not in widespread use. 89.8.70.159 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one says World's only floating island. Beware of the fact! The only facts are World's only floating national park and the World's only floating lake. If BBC and NASA are junks, then are you the expert? Haoreima (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NASA is not only about space. Remember NASA's science is focused on better understanding Earth through the en:Earth Observing System. The Earth Observing System (EOS) is a program of NASA comprising a series of artificial satellite missions and scientific instruments in Earth orbit designed for long-term global observations of the land surface, biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans. Haoreima (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No mention in English-wiki articles about "floating lake". Perhaps user:Haoreima can take that as a hint, that pushing an agenda about "floating lake", has not resulted in widespread use of the phrase. (However, "floating lake" does sound exiting as a phrase for an Indian tourist brochure/pamphlet.) 89.8.70.159 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loktak_Lake EN wiki doesn't actually mention "floating lake", but it describes the features of said feature and how people live on some of these islands. Furthermore, there is no widespread use of the phrase because there is only one lake that actually is that.
Also, the phrase about Keibul Lamjao National Park being the only floating national park is mentioned on both wikis. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Floting lake" is not Simple English. As such, the term would need to be link or described in the text to be used at all. I have no clue what a floating lake consists of so would need to look it up to understand what the article means. If I have no clue, I can expect the reader to be in a similar place. This wiki is about explaining thing not making them more complicated. --Creol(talk) 15:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • English-wiki "does not actually mention "floating lake", says user:MrMeAndMrMe.--Now if said user also will count all the lakes that are mentioned at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_island, that would be fine.--There are at least two lakes in India with floating islands - including the one lake that Indian media calls a "floating lake". 89.8.120.51 (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point that you're trying to make here? Loktak Lake is called both a "floating lake" and has floating islands, one of which is a national park. What are you trying to prove? MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for the priceless moment when someone in this thread will claim that "Yeah, many lakes around the world have floating islands - but there is only one floating lake in the world (because Indian newspapers say that's so)."--Maybe it is time for some of you to quit while you are still, well, not too far behind. 89.8.177.182 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm going to say is this IP is a IP hopping user who hops IPs just to get articles their way. The user has previously been blocked before on the English Wikivoyage under en:voy:Special:Contributions/86.169.245.119, en:voy:Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:8E90:AE00:B1F5:369F:69D0:1144 and en:voy:Special:Contributions/109.249.185.101. The only way I can see to cease this IP's behaviour is to sadly block as communication has failed before. SHB2000 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the three listed IPs all bounce back to the UK while the user here shows IPs from a Norway ISP. Bouncing alot there.. Would take a checkuser to confirm and that would just be a fishing trip. --Creol(talk) 21:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP geolocations don't necessarily match the user's location. They could be using a VPN and people are not stationary. SHB2000 (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
American-English and British-English have no floating lakes, so the Phantom of Heilbronn can not be floating there--In regard to googling NASA and "floating lake": The top two hits are "the floating lake ice cover" (a floating ice cover) and " a floating lake lander" (a lander that can float on a lake). Using NASA as a source about "floating lake", is not looking good. 89.8.51.228 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MrMeAndMrMe has already pointed out the reason in his first statement in this thread. Please see his statement carefully. On the other hand, I think we need a check user as SHB2000 was talking about the vandalism of the previous "ip"s.
Besides, the websites of NASA (from the very USA's American English) and BBC (from the very UK's British English) and thousands of Indian sources support the fact. What else do you expect? You always say these are "junk science". Do you mean NASA & BBC are junks? Haoreima (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that you are not making a mistake in your interpretation of NASA articles: then give us "your" best quote - of what NASA is saying about floating lake.--Don't worry about making a mistake (because NASA sometimes talks about things that float on lakes, and that is arguably somewhat confusing). 89.8.126.96 (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP hopping user: Are you basically saying that AmE and BrE are the only varieties of English and other varieties like Indian, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand etc don't exist? In varieties like NZ English, it's common to mix Maori terms which then become standard in that language. The same goes with Canadian with French, Indian with the local language of the region, South African with languages such as Afrikaans, Zulu and you know what – I could go on. That's a bit like saying pages like the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season should be renamed to "2019–20 Australian wildfire season" since "bushfire" is only found in AusE.
So while Indian English is very similar to British English in most cases, this is not. This is likely a case of a mistranslation between the local language and Indian English, now standard in Indian English. SHB2000 (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not here to discuss specific users. As to this specific Norwegian IP user, they participate in all aspects of this project so I would assume good faith and say that they are not here in a disruptive fashion. Griff (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing the facts:
    • Loktak Lake is a freshwater lake with floating biomasses of organic material (phumdis) that form islands
    • Loktak Lake is within the Keibul Lamjao National Park and is its primary attraction.
    • The BBC refers to Keibul Lamjao as the world's only "floating national park" describing the phumdis upon which many people live their lives. They do not refer to the lake as a floating lake.
    • NASA refers to "floating islands" at Loktak Lake, describing the phumdis as well. They do not refer to the lake as a floating lake.
    • Of the sources in the articles that do refer to the lake as a floating lake, these are book sources and the Times of India article. However, the Times of India article is not a news article, but rather a travel column
    • My research (on Google) shows that the only mentions to this lake as a floating lake are travel guide in nature.
In my opinion, this is not an Indian English vs American/British English issue, this is a discussion between a marketing term and the factual description of the lake. I have not found "thousands of sources" that support the "floating lake" assertion although I welcome help finding them. The lake is not floating, the islands in the lake are. We should be accurate when we describe the lake. Every other project I have checked does not use the "floating lake" term and I think there are enough arguments to not use that. Griff (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed to look further. Please see these things. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your second review is totally wrong. The national park is floating on the lake. It's not "the lake is within the national park". Haoreima (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both BBC and NASA explicitly mention world's only floating national park. So, let's leave the case of the national park. Now, for the world's only floating lake, please see these things. So, the fact that "the term floating lake is seldom used" is not true. It's used very frequently just to refer to the one and the only unique lake. Thanks! Haoreima (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But to solve the conflict, I have a suggestion. Instead of plainly saying "That lake xyz is world's only floating lake", we can say "That lake XYZ is called the world's only floating lake". Of course, it's called so. This could reduce misunderstanding. Haoreima (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to mention that some people call it a floating lake (with an english reference) and redirect floating lake to an article about floating islands. It solves the desire to mention that it is called a floating lake by some sources and the wikilink solves the issue with people not knowing what it means so nullifies the simple english problem. -Djsasso (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with your suggestion, sir! The term "some people call it" might mean that "some people don't want to call it". But that very "some people don't want to call it" should not be the wikipedia editors but some scholars with at least one or two third party standard reliable sources. Until that provision is fulfilled, we should not use "some". Haoreima (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using language like "some people call it" is actually what you are supposed to do because its NPOV. Not all people call it a floating lake, that is an objective fact. Saying it is called the world's only floating lake implies that all people call it that. That is objectively not true. -Djsasso (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with your suggestion, sir! "India is the world's second most populated country" is a fact. But it's not mentioned in every article about "India". We can't say "Some people say that India is the world's second most populated country". We don't use "Some" here. It's not necessary that every articles, news, websites on the Loktak lake should mention that very fact everytime. Some websites may remain silent on this fact while some may mention. The case is same. Haoreima (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Until a good standard reliable source call another lake other than the Loktak lake as the floating lake, it's an objective fact that the Loktak lake is the world's only floating lake. Haoreima (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't how NPOV works. Very clearly outside of India it isn't usually called a floating lake. It is clearly a marketing term, which is ok, but it needs to be made clear that it is not what it is universally considered. Another way to say it and remain within neutrality is to say "the lake is often marketed as the worlds only floating lake." Because objectively, its neither a floating lake (that would break the law of physics) nor is it the only lake of its kind. There are many lakes with floating islands. -Djsasso (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sir! Terms like "marketed" isn't good. Thousands of general knowledge based books found in the Google Books support the fact. So, it's not only the marketing business based websites. Btw, I have another suggestion. What if we use "it's often called as ...." (within inverted commas) in the very fact. Haoreima (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it says it in general books doesn't mean it is not a marketing term. Marketing term just means it is something used to promote something. For example in many many books you can find the city of Edmonton in called the "City of Champions". That was a term the city came up with to market itself but can now be found in many publications. Just because others now use it does not mean its not still a marketing term. And there aren't thousands of books that support it. There are very few on Google Books...most of which are quizes and promotional travel books. -Djsasso (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we can do here is describe the fact that the lake is also called 'Floating lake' in the article as it seems locally and somewhat internationally popular with that name. But while referring to the lake, or on the general text, we can use its real name 'Loktak Lake'.-BRP ever 13:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "floating lake" from the few wiki-articles where it is mentioned; That is what I am leaning toward.--One has tried to ask reasonable questions to one of the major players in this issue; I can not rule out that at least one person is too close to the issue; Topic bans are sometimes considered when someone appears to be too close to an issue; We might be getting closer and closer to that point.--In regard to being the "world's only" on any type of lake: one would need expert sources about lakes - not passing mention in the Hindustan Times. 89.8.122.23 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute should be counted noteworthy only when the contradiction fact has a supporting reliable source, not just by the will of some wikipedians. Haoreima (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Constantly have we shown that there are numerous references that say otherwise, not just Indian references. Please stop bringing this up because it ends up going in circles MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 14:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that user:Haoreima and user:MrMeAmdMrMe are pointing to - those sources suck.--In regard to BBC: that website (or organisation) is not an expert of lakes or geology or hydrology.--If a source sucks, then we should not be schmucks! 89.8.162.69 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(The En-wiki article does not have an article at Simple-wiki. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmuck). 89.8.162.69 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Floating island is a new article (thanks to user:Eptalon).--Travel-guide spam should be deleted from the two other articles - and not moved into the new article. (The alert has now been sounded.) 89.8.162.69 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC) 89.8.162.69 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Floating island link has now been added to the two other articles. Now there will hardly be a void in the other two articles, if one deletes the phrases: world's only and floating lake. 89.8.162.69 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this:
"Many sources call it the world's only floating lake, a lake in which bla bla bla."
You are not an expert.
The people who are writing about it are certainly more knowledged than you and we gave you more than just BBC and Indian sources. This is a compromise between both sides. Can you just stop arguing the same thing? At least the non-foreign redirects discussion actually is getting somewhere. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Travel-guide spam does not belong on Wikipedia.--World's only and floating lake has no basis in science, whatsoever.--We don¨t need sources that suck, because we don't need to be schmucks. 89.8.102.136 (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my last message? I gave you a compromise and you just repeated yourself even though I gave a defense of that same exact thing. I will not keep responding unless if you actually bring something new to the table because otherwise it starts to sound like Reddit, and that is certainly something we are not. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 05:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise about travel-guide spam and junk science, is a tricky thing.--It might be better to do what English-wiki seems to be doing: Deny access to dubious stuff. 89.8.102.136 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the BBC and NASA are not reliable sources, I'm sorry to say, but we're only going to go in circles if you refuse to cooperate. SHB2000 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About BBC: that has already been answered at 02:12, 24 February.--Regarding NASA: user:Griff has already said that "NASA refers to "floating islands" at Loktak Lake, describing the phumdis as well. They do not refer to the lake as a floating lake".--Another thing: I have not heard anything about Jimbo Wales highlighting any policy of negotiating with agenda pushers (not user:SHB2000).--There are many nice lakes in India and other countries.--If a lake is not the world's only this-or-that, then Wikipedia articles should not use wording that helps to spin ideas (and/or services and/or products) that can lead a reader to think that something is the world's only this-or-that. 89.8.102.136 (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bolding everything, its highly disruptive. -Djsasso (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • more side notes: The BBC has in the past shown an odd side. The spheghetti tree incident may be old but shows that the BBC can get "playful" with the truth. As to NASA, the US Govt runs both it and NORAD and NORAD traces Santas route every year.. The US govt tends to fully support Santa's reality. (yes, Virginia, Santa is real. I am in no way suggesting he isn't) It is not unheard of for legitimate outlets to have a little fun now and then. The Discovery channel has run multiple "documentaries" supporting both mermaids and bigfoot. Just because they are respected sourse does not mean everything they put out should be taken as gospel. --Creol(talk) 06:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that NASA "tracing Santa's route every year" means that they are entirely unreliable. The US Government tends to "support" Santa's reality because Christmas is a popular tradition there. I think it's a little playful and doesn't necessarily mean that they actually believe in that. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion break - As was stated above by me, BBC & NASA do not refer to a floating lake at all. Creol and 89.8 have advocated for removing any reference to the term. Djsasso and BRPever have proposed a compromise in which a reference to "floating lake" is included as a marketing term at Loktak Lake. Haoreima and SHB2000 would like to see the lake referred to as a "floating lake" without reservation and MrMe is willing to compromise somewhere between the middle solution and full inclusion. That being said, opinions are pretty even all across the board, so here's my proposed solution.

  • Refer to Keibul Lamjao National Park as the world's only floating national park. Factually true, backed by sources.
    Example lead sentence: "The Keibul Lamjao National Park is a national park in the Bishnupur district of the state of Manipur. It is 40 km2 (15.4 sq mi) in area, is the only floating park in the world and is part of Loktak Lake."
  • Refer to Loktak Lake as the largest lake in India, which a reference to phumdis and that the Keibul Lamjao National Park is the largest floating park in the world.
    Example lead sentence: "Loktak Lake (Meitei: Loktak Paat) is the largest freshwater lake in India. It is located in the central plains of the state of Manipur. It is famous for the phumdis floating in it, of which the largest forms the Keibul Lamjao National Park, the only floating national park in the world. It is marketed regionally as the world's only floating lake and is a tourist attraction in Northeast India."

No other references to "floating lake" will be made anywhere else. As a note, none of our sister projects describe the lake this way and even the Hindi Wikipedia doesn't describe it that way, nor do any of the sources they use in that article, but in the spirit of compromise, how does this sound? The green highlighted bit is the compromise sentence. Griff (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you strike out "It is marketed regionally as the world's only floating lake and is a tourist attraction in Northeast India", then your idea sounds fine.
I am very strongly opposed to "floating lake" - in part because we do not want to open that can of worms: Next month, we will have every swinging d_ck among South-East Asian marketers, with stuff in our articles, like "marketed regionally as one of two floating lakes in the world".--The month after that we can have marketers from my country, peddling (on Wikipedia), "world's only floating snake oil".--We don't need to say what it is marketed as: one needs not go further then discussion pages on wikipedia to encounter wikipedia-users who take offense when somebody informs them that English language does not have "floating lakes" (on Earth).--Feel free to contact Jimbo Wales at English-wiki and explain that it is very important that Wikipedia articles should mention "Floating lake": Laughter is the best medicine - so please help the readers of Jimbo Wales page, with a lot of free medicine! 89.8.123.162 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop bolding everything. SHB2000 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is unnecessary. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop bolding everything. It's annoying. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MENA Women - International Women's Day

Starting next week, and in preparation for the International Women's Day, NUCT team will start creating articles about Women in the MENA Area. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarawneh: Interesting! Could you please show me the link for the event page, either of meta or of this wikipedia? Haoreima (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haoreima:, Yes, it is on WikiGap Challenge page. We are very active regarding the GAP issue. We have close relations with the Swedish Embassy in Amman and been working with them for the last three years. --Tarawneh (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tarawneh I have some doubts because I just came to know about this for the first time.
  1. Does it need submission like other contests in fountain page?
  2. Does women related articles include goddesses, divine and mythical women?
  3. If an article is a candidate for another contest, can it be also a part of this contest if created/expanded/developed within the said time (8th March - 8th May)?
  4. Is the timing really 8th March - 8th May (2 months according to the first heading of the meta:WikiGap Challenge/Background) or 8th March - 8th April (1 month according to the last paragraph of the meta:WikiGap Challenge/Background)?
  5. Does the contest need local organizers, local juries for respective language wikis?
  6. Is this event related to meta:Feminism and Folklore 2022? Or, are the two events independent from each other? Haoreima (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Women's Day

 

@SoyokoAnis, Auntof6, Sakura emad, and Deborahjay: Hello Lady Wikipedians! I wish you a very happy women's day! Today, we celebrate your political, social, cultural and economic achievements around the world. Cheers! :-) Haoreima (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy Wikipedians! Please help me in pinging some more, I know I have missed some ladies! Haoreima (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a woman myself, and today's International Women's Day. Females who edit the Wikipedia content websites should be supported not just today but every day of the year no matter what month it exactly is! I've been editing English and Simple English Wikipedias for just under twelve years, the Spanish Wikipedia for eleven. I want to continue editing, adding special contents to and improving the Wikipedia websites just mentioned until I'm old. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 12:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you for the ping! Happy Women's Day and Month! SoyokoAnis - talk 13:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Hubs Global Conversation

Hello!

The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to the next event about "Regional and Thematic Hubs". The Wikimedia Movement is in the process of understanding what Regional and Thematic Hubs should be. Our workshop in November was a good start (read the report), but we're not finished yet.

Over the last weeks we conducted about 16 interviews with groups working on establishing a Hub in their context (see Hubs Dialogue). These interviews informed a report that will serve as a foundation for discussion on March 12. The report is planned to be published on March 9.

The event will take place on March 12, 13:00 to 16:00 UTC on Zoom. Interpretation will be provided in French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Portuguese. Registration is open, and will close on March 10. Anyone interested in the topic is invited to join us. More information on the event on Meta-wiki.

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Someone, please tell me how to translate the articles from other wikipedias to this? because I don't find any "Translation" button anywhere Editor in Myanmar (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor in Myanmar There is no translate button(to my knowledge). Anything you want to bring over from another Wikipedia must be manually translated.
Please make sure to use Template:Translated page on the article talk page when translating. SoyokoAnis - talk 15:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnisThanks. 16:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Editor in Myanmar (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Happy International Women's Day! SoyokoAnis - talk 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnisand how can I link to the original article from other Wikipedia when I finished translating? Is the same from other wikipedias such as Myanmar Wikipedia, where I mostly edit? Editor in Myanmar (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SoyokoAnis i think you forgot that we have special page called (Special:ContentTranslation) that helps users to Translate article from other wikis. @Editor in Myanmar perhaps you refer to this? (Special:ContentTranslation) 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sakura emad Yeah. Thanks. Editor in Myanmar (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor in Myanmar: Just be aware that the output from the content translator will still need editing to make sure that it is correct English and simple enough for this wiki. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Noted 📝
Editor in Myanmar (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject wikimedia.org

Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Americans Heritage

Personally, I think that this is a little unnecessary to bring to ST but I'm going to bring it up anyway because it was requested.

Should Category:Ukrainian Americans be renamed to Category:American people of Ukrainian descent?

The reason for this is apparently you are considered Ukrainian if you had an ancestor 1000 years ago and this can cause confusion. (Full discussion here)

On the other hand, that's like saying that every American is African American because all humans originate from Africa and that Ukrainian descent is more subjective to the author's previous definition. Also, "descent" may be a little too complex.

I think what needs to be especially done is to define what means "Ukrainian American" or "African American" or something like that to fix the confusion. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"African American" in this discussion? Maybe not a good choice (in this discussion) because it largely means "An American with dark skin who does not refer to himself as Asian American or Pacific Islander or Latin American." (Disclaimer: I have no source.)~--Since I have good faith, I don't think that I am being baited into ... 89.8.123.162 (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well honestly, there's two different definitions here. I think I like the more specific "Ukrainian American" definition to describe those who have mixed nationality. enWP is odd in that they use the latter category but in articles, only describe people as Ukrainian American if they have mixed nationality. I guess we could also use both cats, with Ukrainian Americans being a sub cat of American people of Ukrainian descent? Griff (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With most groups the breakdown tends to follow a pattern:
    1. <nationality1>-<nationatity2> = Dual citizenship (categoried into both category trees)
    2. <nationality1/ethnic group> <nationality2> (Irish American, Ukranian American, etc) - Citizen of Nationality2 but strong ties to Nat1/ethnicity, 2-3 generation who grew up in tradtional household/neighborhood (dominant dual cit/immigrant, maybe 1st gen) cat as nat2, rarely a cat for combos..
    3. <nationality1> of <group> descent = Nat1 who happens to have group in their past. Cat'd as Nat1, descent ignored
This does not apply to African American. That term is too fluid to get a definition without offending someone somwhow.--Creol(talk) 02:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enwiki even says the following "Ukrainian Americans are Americans who are of Ukrainian ancestry." All of these pages would fit into this category. Multiple other sources says the same for African American, Asian American, etc. I don't think that this term is fluid at all and quite, in fact, universal. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term African American changes between everyone who uses is and oft times based on their mood at the time. It is more based on skin color and perception than nationality and ancesty. An American with Morocan, Egyptian or South African ancestry is African American by definition but how many would actually accept that term for them? Especially a pale white South African. Even nationality is overlooked at times and the broader use of American pops up to include all of North America and some time even South America. It is not unheard of for people to describe Black English people as AA even though American clearly does not apply. On a similar note- Asian Americans tend to only include East Asian descent. Indian, Pakistani, Iranian and others tend to be left out. And Those of dual citizenship and in some cases just foreign ciizens living in the US tend to be accepted. Ancestry is a tricky thing as a large part of our culture is so blended that ancestry tests come up with stray percentages of nearly random ethnicities because someone generations ago had a random encounter. Each person would need a full profile to know exactly which ethnic groups they are actually a member of. First-second gen is easy, toss in full descent and it can get tricky fast. --Creol(talk) 16:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, but I would still believe that the point made in en wiki would be valid. "Ukrainian Americans are Americans who are of Ukrainian ancestry." MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 17:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 17:35 post - I interpret that - without having seen okay sources - as "Ukranian Americans are a subset of Americans who are of Ukrainian ancestry"; Further interpretation: "Not all Americans who are of Ukranian ancestry, are Ukranian Americans".--Splitting hairs, some might say.--Having precision, is desirable - others might say. 89.8.161.98 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My ancesty is (in part) German, English, Scots and Irish. My nationality is American (US). I am not German American, Scottish American, Irish American.. not even European American. The ancestry is far enough in my past to not define what I am today. I am American of various European descents but over all, just American. This is not splitting hairs. (and please, enough with the bold.. several people have requested this of you already) --Creol(talk) 18:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of a reply, but I would choose either Ukrainian American or American people of Ukrainian descent (to match enWP). I prefer the first option as more specific, but not opposed to the second. Griff (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New article (and it is somewhat relevant to this thread):

People in Germany with Ukrainian ancestry.
(From category: "People in Germany of Ukrainian ancestry".) 89.8.161.98 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category: People in Russia of Ukrainian ancestry. 89.8.164.96 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct name would be "Russian people of Ukrainian ancestry" or "Russian people of Ukrainian descent". As you have it named, any person in Russia with the ancestry would count even if not a bit of Russian in them at all. Also, be certain anyone in that cat has their ancestry referenced. IF you cant prove they are of Ukrainian decent, dont list them in there. --Creol(talk) 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that to qualify for that cat (and the German one) they have to be IN the country. If they are not physically in it, they don't qualify. - If dead, must be buried/interred there. --Creol(talk) 02:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have disagreement with esteemed user Creol's posts from March 4.--I did quite some research on other Wikipedias before I ended up with "People in Germany with Ukrainian ancestry", and Category: People in Russia of Ukrainian ancestry, as standards for now.--Now I will have to walk everyone thru that (and that is okay, so give me a couple of days to get thru that).--Another thing - please be aware that Simple-wiki hardly can use "diaspora" in titles or in categories.--About always having sources about heritage: Good catch - I will have to go thru all the relevant articles where I have made that connection! 89.8.164.96 (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC) 89.8.164.96 (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue I see here is that the name has to be correct in what it says. In these cases - A person, in Germany/Russia, of Ukrainian ancestry. Those first two are an issue. Any person in Germany/Russia meets those quals. So Any person in Germany with Ukranian ancestry gets in. If the are not in Germany (or not a person), they are out. Every American at Ramstein Air Base qaulifies for the first half with or without and German ancestry needed. The are people and they are in Germany. Any Ukrainian person vacationing in Germany quals. They are people, in Germany (for a time) with Ukrainian ancesters. Almost any refugee of the fighting who flees to Germany is qualified. Amy Ukrain soldier who enters Russian territory qualifies. Heck just going to the Russian embassy qualifies them as an embassy is considered national ground ie. a part of that country. The name has to be precise and mean what it says with as little room for interpretation as possible. (A US secretary at the Embassy in Russia goes out to lunch, gets in the category. Comes back from lunch, removed from the category. AUkrainian German living in Belin goes on vacation to Corfu, gets removed. Flies back home but dies in a plane crash. Where is his body will decide if he gets back in.. Did they find it and bury him in Germany? in. Was it never recovered and lost somewhere in the Alps? Out. Is the location provable? If not proven in, then out) --Creol(talk) 19:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter where they are. It's what their nationality is. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 19:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added point: From Wikipedia:Categories#What should the category be called? In is used when dealing with things located in a location such as a country. Physical objects which do not leave the area use this format. and Of is used thing from a country or belonging to a country. That page has been listed as a guideline for over a decade now. (I wrote it back in 2008) --Creol(talk) 19:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow this thread really got long. Here are my thoughts.. again. For the "of descent/ancestry" categories, use "X of Y descent", following enWP guidelines and category titles. For Ukrainian Americans/German Ukrainians, categorise them into the Ukrainian-American/German-Ukrainian cat if 1. They are dual nationals (and we can prove it), or they are referred to in reliable sources as such. Griff (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From post "19:08": "So Any person in Germany with Ukranian ancestry gets in [...]".--I reckon' I still will be running with that. At the same time I expect to pay attention to post "19:20" and "19:23".--Embassies treated as countries? Well, around the 1980s in one of the UK countries, a law enforcement official (or other person) outside an embassy was mortally wounded by a person (pointing something out of the embassy), while the person was inside an embassy.--The UK police were no pushovers, so it hardly was more than a question of time until they got inside the embassy. 89.8.190.7 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC) 89.8.190.7 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everyone reads UTC. Please refer to what you are talking about. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 23:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sigs: 19:08 was my post starting "The issue I see here is that...". 19:20 was your post "It doesn't really matter where... " and 19:23 was my post "Added point: From...". --Creol(talk) 01:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 03:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walk-thru

Regarding those "Ukrainians in Germany" - they do not get removed from that article just because they drove some hours to buy additional good sausage in Hungary, Poland or Spain. 89.8.168.158 (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at Ukrainians in Germany over at En.wiki. About halfway down the page in the section "Notable people" there is a link for more information. See the name of the category En is using? Category:German people of Ukrainian descent. Same standard as we use here. People who are Germans and have Ukranian ancestry. As to those two words; Descent is what you are of, ancestry is what you have (you have ancestors, you are a descendant of a group). Subtle but different. Same meaning different wording. Which to use? either/or - don't care, just be consistant. As to "in", it denotes location. IF that location changes, "in" may no longer apply. This is why "in" is uses for categories where things do not move (geography, cities, etc) and not things that do move (people). If the category is people in Germany and they are not in Germany then they are not people in Germany. They are still German people though... so they always will fit there (barring legalities such as denouncing citizenship) All told, I have nothing to say against the category being used, I just have an issue with the consistancy, ambiguity and overall naming convention. --Creol(talk) 04:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"just be consistent", said user:Creol.--On the other hand, if there are several types of okay titles, then there (arguably) is no rush to decide which is to be preferred; Okay redirects, can help us, so that we don't have to rush into deciding too much, yet.--Boxers or briefs, was a question to a sitting U.S. president.--I prefer to ask: "Ancestry" (from ancestors) or "descent"? "My" answer: Ancestry. 89.8.168.158 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the original question, use "descent" as per enWP. I understand the argument for Ancestry, but we can't ignore dictionary definitions in our aim to be simple. For the sake of argument, is there any issue with "Wow this thread really got long. Here are my thoughts.. again. For the "of descent/ancestry" categories, use "X of Y descent", following enWP guidelines and category titles. For Ukrainian Americans/German Ukrainians, categorise them into the Ukrainian-American/German-Ukrainian cat if 1. They are dual nationals (and we can prove it), or they are referred to in reliable sources as such." (earlier comment). Pinging Creol, MrMeAndMrMe for thoughts. Griff (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that user:Griff is far away from anything that this discussion, might conclude.--Whatever our conclusion and/or consensus, we should be keeping things Simple.--Nobody is being stopped from starting articles such as: "List of people that have passports from both Ireland and United States".--Regarding the issue about "Irish-Americans". User:Creol is adamantly opposed to being called an "Irish-American" even if some - not me - would regard that user as "Irish-American"; See post of "18:12, 26 February"; Earlier posts from i.p. are also doubtful about us using controversial terms such as "Ukrainian-Americans or German-Ukrainian or Irish-American; One problematic example is Anna Politkovskaya (murdered journalist), who had strong links to 3 countries and their cultures; You can not reasonably put her into category: "NationOne-NationTwo", and then ignoring "NationThree".--Regarding "ancestry" or "descent" - in the Wikipedia category-tree: the most important thing is (arguably) that we do not loose the links to the En-wiki category tree.--As far as loosing language links to English articles - well, I urge that the word "ancestry" is what we will find acceptable for titles (for articles). A main reason for that is, it is Simple English that (arguably) uses the word that is easiest to rembember the meaning of: "ancestor".--My conclusion: use "ancestry" for titles of articles.--Thereafter decide the category-tree. (In some ways, the category-tree, is less important to me, as long choices there do not "contaminate" the Simple-English in article titles.) If a large group feels and makes strong arguments for the use of the word "descent" in category-trees - then fine! For now, I feel that the argument weight about the same for both words, in regard to use in the category-tree.--Another thing: Would it be an idea to split the discussion about article title, from the discussion about use of words in the category-tree? (I think that idea is okay.) 89.8.150.96 (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: passports only came into widespread use, roughly around World War One.--Using passports as a reason for being in a category, would increasingly exclude people from categories, the farther back in time that they are from.--A somewhat lop-sided/lopside presentation of group, might not be desirable. 89.8.150.96 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passports do not define citizenship, they only prove that a person is a citizen. Most US citizens have never had a passport. Given the size of the county and the variety of climates and geography, leaving the country for a change of pace is not needed. Citizenship is granted as defined by the specific entity (ie. the laws of the nation) Creol (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Nobody is being stopped from starting articles such as: List of citizens of both Ireland and the United States. 89.8.167.204 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That list is too vague to mean anything. If it were created, it would probably be redirected to Category:Irish-Americans or any equivalent. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to post @ 18:59 - I would probably vote Not merge.--However, I am not going to cry about milk that has not yet been milked, before its going to be spilt. 89.8.65.155 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_140&oldid=8129993"