Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 142

Wikiprojects in Talk Pages

Hello. I have a question. From my time here, I am of the inference that we don't put Wikiproject banner things or whatever they're called in talk pages. Why don't we do this(or if we do that, tell me)? Thanks, MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Due to our small community, we don't support Wikiprojects in project space like enWP does. While users may (and have) created Wikiprojects in their own userspace, they have never seen much use. With only 50 or so active editors (and that's being generous), many of whom focus on different aspects of the project, it simply doesn't make sense. Perhaps one day in the far far future. Griff (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't put them on article talk pages, because WikiProjects here aren't official. They are managed completely in userspace. If you see any such banners being put in article talk pages, feel free to delete them and, if applicable, request deletion of the template that generates them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It's what the two above said. WikiProjects are user projects that are usually abandoned (stop looking at me) and left to rot. Even the largest WikiProjects usually have 7-8 members, unlike the thousands on en-wiki. Even so, nobody usually takes the time to manage the article lists on them because to be fair, who uses them? Putting links on talk pages could link to long dead users who operate empty projects. 💠Ely - Talk💠 06:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right! Ely! Wikiprojects are actually user projects. Lol! But true! Haoreima (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not overly surprising tbh. On Wikivoyage, we have quite a couple of them (called "Expeditions"), but they don't usually get much support and there has only been one expedition that has been successful before and that was only before it too became abandoned. SHB2000 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Main Page/styles.css

Why is Main Page/styles.css in the main space and not in the wikipedia name space where it belongs? Does it actually do anything where it is? Looking at Wikidata, we are the onle wiki to have such a page. Creol (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was in the mainspace on EN until 2020, which is the last time it was changed here as well. I'd guess nobody has noticed or cared enough. Wouldn't be hard to fix. I can take a look when I'm back at my desktop, if nobody else feels like tackling it. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, and I don't think I broke anything. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't .css pages be in template namespace? While it is true that namespace doesn't really matter, it is also true that src="Main Page/styles.css" is shorter than src="Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css". NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to follow what other wikipedias have done here, I think. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Simplification team

I propose for the creation of a group of volunteers to simplify articles or atleast some passages whenever anyone asks for help for simplification. Like many volunteers join in many Wikiprojects here, they can do the same at this one too. Though the name of the team may be given a good one, I was thinking one like "Simplification volunteers team"! What does the community think over this idea? Haoreima (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 12:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep sounds nice --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe and つがる: While waiting for others' opinions, could you suggest a good name for the project page? Haoreima (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but by creating a project page that discusses common ways to simplify topics, expanding on our existing guide. The "team" (I prefer the word "group" which is in the BE1500) could be hosted in userspace and perhaps referenced in the guide, with the knowledge that they could be called upon to help at any time. For example, I often ask Sakura emad (who leads the Article Rescue Squadron) to assist at RFD, in this case, I would ping Haoireima/MrMe whoever to assist a user with a difficult simplification. Griff (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There have been a few user space wikiprojects for this. I think User:Thesixthstaff/WikiProject Simplification is the most recent I can recall. I think the page just has been moved to various peoples user spaces over the years since officially we don't do wikiprojects on this wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's quite a while ago. Perhaps a new userspace for WPSimplification(or whatever we decide to name it) would be slightly more permanent as there seems to be a few more active users that have just resurfaced and come over here and won't quit for a while, but that's just speculation. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, these wikiprojects pretty much never maintain activity, its why we don't officially have them here. People are always very gungho in the discussion to create them, but then they die often within a week or two. We don't really have the user base to make wikiprojects function. The best way on this wiki to get people involved is to talk on this page about it, not hide discussion away on some project somewhere. -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not hidden if you do it well, the way I see it. If you mention what you're doing in edit summaries, have people refer to them(referring to what griff said here) and have general activity, then you're fine. I have been saving articles for the articles rescue squadron for a month now and Griff has asked Sukara to save more than a few articles, and it's doing fine(though it only has two members). MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that is sort of the point right? For example I didn't even know we had someone doing an Article Rescue squadron here until like 2 weeks ago. And like you say it only has two members, at that point, just posting on someones talk page or on simple talk gets what is happening seen by more people. Most people won't really pay attention to anything outside of this page. Super active editors will, but the vast majority of people won't. Its why we centralize all our discussion and deletion pages to one place etc, so they aren't spread out and discussion happening everywhere. (I should make clear I am not saying we shouldn't have one, just that wikiprojects tend to die whereas just posting on this page if you need help tends to work. Just look at all the help with cleanup Creol has gotten done by doing that lately.) -Djsasso (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Archived notifying bot

In regular English Wikipedia, there are bots that inform people something like this:- "You created a thread called ABCXYZ at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread." Why not we engage one of our bots to do this at simple English Wikipedia for notifying whenever there's archiving of threads at AN or ST? There are lots of bots working here too! It won't be a difficult task for bots. The significance of doing this is that it will improve the efficiency of our Wikipedia. Haoreima (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't have nearly the amount of traffic for that to be necessary, we have maybe a few threads archived every few days. The link to and search box for archives are right at the top of the page. Having bots do this is just spam. -Djsasso (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

idk why you say it's a spam. Haoreima (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anything will actually be archived in simple talk again because of the redirect discussion. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 13:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Lol. 🤣 True! Haoreima (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Because they would be messages that most people would not want/need. We generally frown on automated messages here from bots as they are impersonal. It is why we don't use bots to welcome people here for example whereas some other wikis do. Most people are aware that after a couple weeks the topics get archived after no discussion, and its a fairly long time of no discussion before that happens so they should be aware that the discussion has died on it by that point. -Djsasso (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I still have one doubt. Is there any mechanism/system to block/stop bots from leaving messages into talk pages of certain people (if they wish)? If this exists, it would be a solution too! What do you think about this? Haoreima (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There's the {{nobots}} template, which a bot may use to tell if a user wants bot messages. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote (as of 18 March)

Dear all,

About 11 days ago the ratification voting for the Enforcement Guidelines of the UCoC started. There are three more days left before the voting closes. So far, 1569 voters from across several projects have cast their votes.

Out of the 58 eligible voters on Simple Wikipedia, only 1.724% of the eligible voters from this project have voted. If you haven’t yet voted, now is the time. Please vote or share your feedback on the guidelines from the perspective of this project here]

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference issue

List of named minor planets: 1–999 is currently showing in Category:Pages with reference errors but im not seeing the cat on the page nor any ref error either. Right now things are being screwy so that could be part of the issue. Im not always getting ref error indicators currently (debugging Mandy Rose was a terror without alerts though it was showing the error cats). Some pages I see them, others i dont.. but the cats are always there except in this case,, The page has no indication it should be in a cat at all, let alone why its there. Normally I would just prune away and preview to see when the cat falls of to narrow it down but without it even showing the cat, im at a loss.

Can anyone see something that might be causing it?

Was also getting the IPA input thing on the Search block and couldnt use search outside of the Article space (User:c... no suggestions at all) Got that turned off and back to working normally but no clue what started it or if it could also be behind my not seeing all errors.Creol (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It may be on your end because the only page I see in that cat is Ossetian language. Have you tried purging the cache? Griff (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I went to dinner, came back and it was gone.. didnt even reload the page. PFM... Creol (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

When I first made the page, there were reference errors which was then fixed from the use of a template, probably just took a while to update. Wikipedia's strange like that. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 14:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Years

I would like to announce that I have just read Wikipedia:WikiProject and realize that I am supposed to announce the creation of your WikiProjects. Therefore, I am announcing the making of Wikiproject years. This is a Wikiproject task-force type thing in which you can write, maintain, manage and help out articles that are relating to almost any year to ever exist. To learn our full scope and see how to contribute, view this link.

We wish to have more users in the future and quite possibly even be one of the most active WikiProjects here. Whether you want to make articles on here to help others, or to set the record of most active Wikiprojects to have your name go down in history, make sure be an active member of Wikiproject Years. Ciao, MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 05:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@ColorfulSmoke interest for you. 💠Ely - Talk💠 10:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: This sounded like something I might be interested in, but I'm unsure. I left a message on the talk page. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Join the Community Resilience and Sustainability Conversation Hour with Maggie Dennis

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

The Community Resilience and Sustainability team at the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting a conversation hour led by its Vice President Maggie Dennis.

Topics within scope for this call include Movement Strategy, Board Governance, Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Community Development, and Human Rights. Come with your questions and feedback, and let's talk! You can also send us your questions in advance.

The meeting will be on 24 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC (check your local time).

You can read details on Meta-wiki.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm.. dunno about you all, but this list just about sums up things I will never contribute to! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the topics section on that page as well, I can't say Im in disagreement. I have no interest at all in ever talking to that person. My "Universal Code of Conduct": try not to be an a@#hole too often. /code. Looks about as touchy-feely as a preist at a Boy Scout jamboree and yet a lot more preachy. Creol (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Questions on how to use reset talk

How does one use reset talk 1.1? It sounds like a useful tool but I don't know how to access it and/or if you can access it. Thanks, MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Use importScript or mw.loader.load to load the script. You can place it in your common.js or your current skin's javascript file. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to load the actual script: User:DannyS712/Reset talk.js -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the talk page. Any reason why? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

try mw.loader.load("//simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:DannyS712/Reset talk.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); //[[User:DannyS712/Reset talk.js]], it should appear under the "more" dropdown menu. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Just a side note, tt tag is deprecated. Use <code> (for code) or <kbd> (for keyboard keys). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Force of habit :P -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting is now closed

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Greetings,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) came to a close on 21 March 2022. Over 2300 Wikimedians voted across different regions of our movement. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process! The scrutinizing group is now reviewing the vote for accuracy, so please allow up to two weeks for them to finish their work.

The final results from the voting process will be announced here, along with the relevant statistics and a summary of comments as soon as they are available. Please check out the voter information page to learn about the next steps. You can comment on the project talk page on Meta-wiki in any language. You may also contact the UCoC project team by email: ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Negligence of Simple Wikipedia on enwiki and all other languages

While using the English Wikipedia for over 11 months only for around 4 have I been aware of this wikis existence, and looking around all the articles it is obvious that this wiki is heavily neglected, despite being very important. For example, Water tower has not been edited in six years. This is due to the fact that Simplewiki is not mentioned on the enwiki at all, and is only shown under the less than 100,000 articles section at the very bottom of the main page, dont you think in Help they should say ¨If this is too complex for you, check out Simple Wikipedia!¨ or something? Furthermore, there are only around twenty featured articles and maybe sixty at most good articles.

• Option A - Show Simplewiki higher up on the main page, or some other high traffic help page
• Option B - Show simplewiki not on a mega high view page, but do show it on some other page
• Option C - Do some form of external advertisement
• Option D - Do nothing
• Option E - Other (Specify what)

Im leaning towards option A, but what you think? Lallint (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about this. I can see many newer-english speakers are driven away from enWiki because they cannot understand it and most views on this Wiki are from the 50 or so editors that will ever appear, rarely are there actual readers. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 15:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MrMeAndMrMe Note we are currently at around 400,000 siteviews/day. --Ferien (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough, I guess I'm wrong. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing that would most likely happen is option D, I like Option A or B the most, though. kolva | chat? 15:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this can actually be solved. I agree the standard of writing on English Wiki is appalling, and very much worse than the old printed version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. There are some exceptions where, by accident, a subject has editors who can really write. If you're interested in music you will find some good examples. But it doesn't surprise me that many pages on English wiki are badly written. American school and basic degree education is dependent heavily upon MCQs. The difficulty foreign language readers have is just made worse by the generally poor quality of the prose. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am more talking about that Enwiki is simply more difficult to understand with it's larger words. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

1) This isn't really a question for the SEWP community. The question is "How should the English Wikipedia let readers know there is a SE option available to them?" and we cannot answer that question for the En.Wiki community. 2) COVID-19 just left hundreds of thousands of people with clinical and sub-clinical cognitive issues, not all of which will self-resolve. There is a greater need for accurate simple English information than ever. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I cannot start a discussion on enwiki because I am indef blocked Lallint (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Promoting the Simple English Wikipedia on the English Wikipedia would be wonderful and would be very helpful to readers. However, I believe (I may be wrong) that this has been suggested before and the English Wikipedia community have chosen in the past to not promote simplewiki on pages. External advertisement would be nice, I'm not sure how we would do that though. --Ferien (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There would also be the problem that such advertisements may attract more vandalism than editors. Vermont (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea of possibility moving us up in the interwiki links, but this is really something that has to be sent through the RFC process at enWP. Griff (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This comes up about once a year or so. And the short answer is: It's not likely to happen. Why? Mainly because this community could be and typically is all for additional exposure (especially considering how useful our project is to schools and people learning English); but the onus falls on the English Wikipedia since that's the project that would have to be altered. There's even been past suggestions to merge the projects or present the Simple English Wikipedia as another tab at the top. Since none of these have so far succeeded to impress, woo, and sway the English Wikipedia community into action, the best to offer is the current iteration of user made tabs (found here and here). I didn't write these, I'm just the latest keeper of the code, as it were. But I simple could not imagine my UI without the tabs. Operator873 ^connect 02:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The truth is that it isn't easy to write the kind of simple English that this wiki wants. That's one reason articles here could be seen as neglected. (I think "neglect" is a better term than "negligence" for what you describe.) Many of the articles here don't meet our stated goal of being in simple language, because we don't have a good way of checking all of them or of vetting the writers. They may be written in clear language, but that's not the same as simple language.

Also, be aware that some people on enwiki would resist publicizing this wiki because they think it should be shut down. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your points, perhaps 30% of articles here are complex and confusing.

I don't this wiki will be shut down, however — it is generally helpful to schools and significantly better than some other smaller wikis. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: I didn't mean to say I thought it would be shut down, just that there have been several attempts to shut it down. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a link to those discussions? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 12:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I swore i saw a few shut down the simple english wikipedia things on langcom, let me find it kolva | chat? 14:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikipedia_(3)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Deletion_of_Simple_English_Wikiquote_and_Wikibooks

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikiquote

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wiktionary

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikibooks

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikipedia

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikipedia_(2)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikiquote_(3) kolva | chat? 14:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving simple up has been proposed on en.wiki in the past and defeated. There is a fairly strong sentiment there that we shouldn't be promoted over any other wiki. Especially due to our "quality". -Djsasso (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Football vs association football?

If we look at Category:Football, it's a bit of a mess in my opinion. There are two different names used a lot, football and association football. Some cats use football, while other use association - I think it's about 50/50 so whatever the consensus is here / or whatever consensus there has been already, a lot of category moving will have to be done. Do/should we use football or association football? Shall we go simpler or follow en? --Ferien (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Mainly football is a family of ball sports. (mainly as footballer is an exception) It included Association football (fooyball, futbal, soccer, etc) and Gridiron football (US football). The two groups should be entirely seperate in the main cat but not everyone knows to keep it that way and things leak out of the subcats into the main improperly.

• tldr; football - group of sports, Association football - a type of football. Creol (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Added note: Once past the entry cat and into the subbat, Association is dropped from the cat names for ease of use. Football in England would be about Association football in England. For the other versions, the sport uses a name which is not ambiguous, atleast locally ie. Football in the United States vs soccer in the United States. In the US football means Gridiron not association so the common names are used. For countries that have Association football named as football and any other "football" sport (say rugby or Australian rules) Association gets the name football and the others use their proper names. Because of the size and scope of US football, football in the US tends to be the exception to the way cats are done. With 350 million people and about 340 million of them using the term in the same way.. They can name the cat what they want.. Commonname and what have you. Creol (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for following enWP's method simply for ease of use, and I believe American/gridiron football should be in an entirely different category tree with no cross-over except at the very highest category level. A mention on the Category page may be useful. Other than that, I'm fine with Creol's suggestion. Griff (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Curently the only cross-over is at Cat:Football. That cat includes most ball sport played by people running around on grass type surfaces ie. Assoc, gridiron, Australian Rules, rugby, etc. After that, each sport goes its own seperate way. Cat:football is basically one of the super-cats such as motor sports, water sports, athletics, baseball (baseball, softball, cricket, etc) and net sport (tennis, badmitton, volleyball) --Creol(talk) 02:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Football = group of sports

Association football = soccer

American football/Australian rules football and Canadian football should remain as it is. Rugby is only considered football in most of Oceania. SHB2000 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2022 ends soon

Feminism and Folklore 2022 which is an international writing contest organized at Wikipedia ends soon that is on 31 March 2022 11:59 UTC. This is the last chance of the year to write about feminism, women biographies and gender-focused topics such as folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, fairy tales, folk plays, folk arts, folk religion, mythology, folk artists, folk dancers, folk singers, folk musicians, folk game athletes, women in mythology, women warriors in folklore, witches and witch hunting, fairy tales and more

Keep an eye on the project page for declaration of Winners.

We look forward for your immense co-operation.

Thanks Wiki Loves Folklore international Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

uw-rfd and other warning templates

Can these templates:

• {{uw-rfd}}
• {{uw-login}}
• {{uw-relatedpages}}

be added to Twinkle? I noticed that they're not available as options in twinkle. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 11:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fehufanga Because, Twinkle is made for the English Wikipedia(not Simple English) that wiki has all the content it needs to be able to run everything. Any other wiki does not. You can't just add things to Twinkle and expect them to work without the right images and code. SoyokoAnis - talk 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@SoyokoAnis adding those templates shouldn't be a difficult matter. Those templates don't take any inputs, and they're not really breaking anything. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are the twinkle settings different between en and simple? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 12:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe Because Twinkle is built for the English Wikipedia, most of the assets from the English Wikipedia Twinkle are brought here if they work. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Things here are simpler, from CSD criteria to template names. Since the 20+ modules of (original) Twinkle works perfectly if and only if all of its 800+ templates works fine, it is extremely hard to internationalize Twinkle. Any attempts without appropriate knowledge (years of experience with JS/CSS/templates/policies and hours of hard work) result in a mess, such as our version at viwiki. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Our twinkle is permanently in beta...it is many many many many versions behind en.wiki. At this point its a use at your own risk script. In its current state it can't match what en.wiki can do without a complete redo because some of the core code changed drastically in the probably decade since we last really touched it. It is very brittle at this point, and touching anything has the potential of breaking it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a complete redo would be necessary. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That'd be a lot of effort, but I believe DannyS712 was looking at it as a very long-term project. --Ferien (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh its not that we are not doing it, but it is a very very long term project. Likely many years to complete. -Djsasso (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is that? I would think that we take enwiki code, note down things and text we want to change in simple talk(prod > RfD, simplify warning messages, remove stub templates that aren't used here etc) and then change the code to that instead. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the code on en.wiki is written for en.wiki. Our wiki doesn't have the same infrastructure for lack of a better word. Its not just a matter of a few templates here or there or a few script pages. Its right down to things like the css and things this wiki might not have enabled that en.wiki does etc. Twinkle was never meant to work on any wiki but en.wiki. Anything we do basically has to involve rewriting chunks of what they do to make it work here. Its not simple minor changes. Even the original code we brought over here the first time never worked completely here right from the beginning. It was a proof of concept...that never really got completed on this wiki. At one point we had a user start trying to make it work "more" properly here, but it still never really was made for this wiki, it was just bandaids and tape to get it working "good enough". I think Chenzw looked at it once and there was hundreds and hundreds of templates/modules/mediawiki pages that would have to be changed. And changes to each of them would then require everything that relied on those to then be updated as well etc causing a huge cascading tree of changes. We essentially would be rewriting the wiki, not just twinkle. -Djsasso (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Although there was something that came out in the past year or so where you can more easily make a new version of Twinkle on another wiki, I've forgotten the name of it, but it was somewhere in tech news in 2021... --Ferien (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

twinkle-core and twinkle-starter? --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 07:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, that's probably it :) --Ferien (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

<-I have no issue at considering working it in if a. someone codes it (because I have no idea how), and b. you show it's not going to break the whole world. Griff (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

For consistancy sake..

Currently we have Americans, Italians, Irish people and French people. Italian people redirects to Italians. We need to pick one naming convention and stick with it for the main name and redirect the other to it as needed. And obviously some of these will just redirect to the applicable country until we get an article on them (French people => France)

I would suggest {(a) <nationality> people or (b) People of <county> is the forms fit all and is not seen as derogatory. "a" works best for general usage but "b" is better at handling corner cases where the are issues with ambiguity or complexity in the demonym (American vs Of the United States, Filipino vs of the Philippines, of New Zealand vs ... Kiwi? New Zealandish? New Zealandic? just say screw it and go with New Zealand people..) "B" could handle them all, but is a bit more wordy for casual usage. For compeleteness there are 2 other main option (c) demonym only (Americans, Italians, Irish, Germans) dont seem that bad until you get to the terms where the sigular and plaural are the same and ambuguity sets in (French, Russia, Irish <nation>ese - people or things) and nationalities with out common acceptable demonym (New Zeland). Lastly there is option (d) "screw it, things are fine the way they are" - chaos and mayhem rules. Creol (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not necessarily that chaos and mayhem rules. It's that we generally follow whatever the en.wiki name is unless its using non-simple words. I believe they too have the same differences we do and I am just guessing it comes down to for some countries the shorter Americans is much more common than People of the United States so WP:COMMONNAME is much more readily applied. In some cases I believe its also to separate pages on the Nationality vs Ethnicity where they are named the same but are distinct things. French being a good example, there is French language, French people (ethnicity) and French nationality. We don't have all these articles but its a good example of why we have different names for different countries. -Djsasso (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As Sasso said, I'm fine with following enWP and discussing any non simple variations as necessary. Griff (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Standard English already has numerous sensible adjectives: New Zealanders, Philipinos, Germans, etc. But we are forced to use a second word with French people. "Americans" without a qualification would always be read in the UK as "the people of the U.S.A." Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Never Philippino (or Philipinos (sic))... Pilipinos (the local term, issues with no F in most of the languages) or Filipino/Filipina (the global terms) but never Philippino (U of Hawaii, Manoa Center for Philippine Studies)Creol (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

And lets get back to the actual topic of the post. Ill rephrase- Why do we call the people Americans, Italians, Irish people and French people? WHy not use consistant names? ie American people, Italian people, Irish people, French people. Creol (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

One of the reasons as I mentioned for example is that French people can mean people from France and people who speak French. It can mean people who are citizens of France (ie nationality) but it can also mean people who have French ethnicity. It also comes down to WP:COMMONNAME. It can't be consistent because not all countries have these issues, one size fits all rarely works well. Specific to your examples A doesn't work for many countries as for the reason I mention first. B is a bit of an issue in that it isn't simple, no one says people of X so its a highly unlikely search term. C is an issue because demonym's can refer both to nationality and ethnicity so are also ambiguous. All of it is really a bit screwy. Some cases A works better, some cases C works better etc. Which in the end is why they are a range of things. -Djsasso (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

French people means people with that citizenship or that ethnicity... Does that also not apply to Italian people? Why are the groups French people and Italians. Why Italians and not Italian people. Your argument is that "French people" is ambiguous? And you don't see a totally seperate problem there? That aside, "Italian person" has the same issues as "French person" though easier to identify ethnically than a French person ever would be. To actually identify between ethic and non-ethnic French (when dealing with caucasians at least) it would take a DNA test to prove ethnicity and that is rarely that precise.

The common name could likely be "The French" which is not even a concern so tossing in WPːCOMMONNAME does not help. Given that COMMONNAME is only useful here to point to en:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). Lets look there for info. Chart of examples.

• Mass noun demonymsː British Chinese · Iyer · Navajo. So the "correct" term would be "Chinese" yet our term is "Chinese people" / Nope we don't follow that part of the guideline.
• Parenthetical disambiguationː Macedonians (ethnic group) - French people for the ethnic group and 16 redirects to France (including French people) but nothing for the ethnic group. Not following this either.

We clearly don't tend to follow en. guidelines on this topic. We don't usually separate nationality and ethnicity without directly statings so (ethically Italian vs Italian - directed to Italians not Italian people). We use Chinese people and not Chinese, Americans and not American people, French people (ethnic group) is right out. Which version we use is a coin toss decided by the person who first named the article most often. There is not even an attempt at consistency. Americans, Irish people, German people =>Germans, Chinese people, Italians. Not consistent. American people, Irish people, German people, Chinese people, Italian people. Consistent. Creol (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

French was a single example, it also applies to Italian and many other groups of people. French was just a particularly good example because "French" could apply to at least four things. I am not saying we couldn't clean things up a bit either. I am just saying consistency for consistency sake is often a bad choice. In general I would use the title that is currently used on en.wiki for the same subject unless theirs is too complex. But I can't think of many examples where being too complex would be an issue, other than if they maybe it was "People of France" which is complex and doesn't meet "be concise". -Djsasso (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this isn't actually about consistency just to be consistent. It's about not having to remember which groups use form A, which use form B, and which are just some random mish-mash. When editing, its annoying to have to stop and figure out which grouping you need to link to. If all people groups used the same form, this goes away. It is always <demonym> people. Whether that is an article or a redirect doesn't matter, it's there and gets the job done correctly. No need to have to preview the link to ensure you got it right (enough other things getting checked on previews). The editor is also linking the primary target and not its redirect (in cases like German people => Germans, not French people =>France). Arbitrary naming just adds more guess work in wikifying articles. Its bad enough trying to understand what someone is meaning to say at times. Adding in a convoluted naming system to be sorted through to get the job done does not help. If things are named the same way, they are easier to find quickly. Also with people in the title, it is a bit easier to understand if you have a limited grasp. ie. "German people... they are people and something about probably Germany. Definitely people though". "Germans.. Something to do with Germany? or shepherds?"

As to People of <whereever>, yes its too wordy. Really only useful for special corner cases where its easier to use and understand than the demonym. Which version of Filopino, pilopino, filapina, another seemingly random spelling / gender tense etc... not philippino though.. "Of the Philipines" is more wordy and harder to locate but less drama in it. Very few cases like this one thankfully so it can almost always be avoided.Creol (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Side note: There is one area where the "People from" naming is used. Categories for political subdivisions of countries, for example US states. Texans, Texan people, People from Texas all have their pros and cons but imagine the amount of research needed to complete the list of demonyms when tossing the States of Germany into the mix. Easier to do Category:People from North Rhine-Westphalia than remember the demonym for each state. And what is a person from Perth called? Perther, Perthan, Perthonian, Perthi? I got not clue there. 197 countries is bad enough. too many states/cantons/districts/whatever. Creol (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Side-side note: Something I noticed looking for a German "people from" example: The article for the people from Germany, Germans is in Category:German people. In the article space, German people redirects to Germans, in the category namespace, Cat:Germans redirects to Cat:German people... It makes my head hurt. Creol (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think (a) is used consistently through out enWP (see Cat:People by nationality). Is there an issue with doing that? Griff (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK update frequency

Hello, I am here again to ask another question, also asked here but due to being in a small community, was never answered. In this Wiki, DYKs are usually updated once every month as far as I can tell. I am wondering if perchance we could update it every two weeks or every week because we have an overflowing number of DYKs now with a full queue and six DYK proses now in the holding area as of writing this. We can, of course, get it back down to once every month if we become inactive again, but I see no reason as to why we shouldn't. I have, however, been wrong before, so I think I should get a quick consensus here or any other thoughts before something official happens. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 04:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we first do a one time update and if we see a consistent backlog, then we can look at making it a permanent change to the frequency. Griff (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• As far as I remember, there was a discussion on this a while ago and we decided not to change it. While I do feel, frequent update is good, I think we need more activity in the area related to featured content before changing that.--BRP ^ever 08:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that suggested frequency is too quick and may cause shortages... --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am very guilty of not paying this part of the wiki.... any attention. I will effort to be more involved, but as others have said it is hard to have more frequent updates without more activity. What we do not want is to sacrifice any quality for the sake of frequency, in my opinion. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, a back log of good DYK hits is a good thing, especially for this wiki. The more slices of pie we have to choose from, the better and more delicious the main page can be. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the best idea would be for twice a month. Here was the last discussion. A lot of the concern from that discussion was how the activity at DYK may die - which it sorta did for a couple of months. We are now going into the holding area which is what we do when all the queues are full. It's gone from "the queues are filling up" to "the queues are all full". Twice a month (maybe on the 1st and 15th?) would be perfect in my opinion because it wouldn't be so ambitious that we'd have another 11 month wait before another DYK but would be more often than once a month, and there are lots of DYKs at the moment. We can always go back to once a month. We don't have any strict time when DYKs should be updated though, the template on the DYK page says it should be updated every week but not many people agree it should be. Note that there is a current boost of activity at DYK but that may die out again, a permanent update to make the frequency once a week or something would just have us run out of DYKs. --Ferien (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Two members are needed to update DYK ever, in my opinion. TDKR has been doing this a while and has a large backlog of future DYKs in his user page and he seems to have been the first person. I intend to do this for a long time, being the second person, and maybe more people will be active in the future. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

TDKR is the main person active at DYK creating DYKs and who knows, his backlog could somehow run out one day... What's better is probably three people active at DYK minimum. We don't have an issue with reviewing hooks anymore (they seem to be getting reviewed in 5 days or less), it's creating them at the problem. That is the difficult side. TDKR can only create 4(?) at a time, plus more people doing DYKs doesn't hurt anyway. I'll see if I can create another one some time soon - they're great fun and I encourage everyone already involved in this discussion to create one as well. --Ferien (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I said something last time like we should have enough in the queues for an entire year of twice a month before we made it faster. Because this has been a constant thing with us...everytime we get a few built up we think we can go faster and blow our queue and then instead of getting them put up every month we only get them updated every 6 months. I feel that is still my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We could see where we are after the first month and if queues aren't continuing to update at that pace, we can stop. While there's been a history at DYK of updating the queues too often, we could always see where we are in one and two months and check back here again. I don't think we even need to get consensus for these kind of things, we just need the person who's the one regularly updating DYK at that stage to stop and think before updating: do we have enough to continue at the rate they're updating it now and do we have many full queues for them to start updating more than once a month? --Ferien (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

While we continue to create this, would creating another queue be a good idea for DYK? We don't need to fill all the queues up if we're running low. We currently have 10 in the holding area (2 DYK queues worth...) --Ferien (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Working through articles, an issue has come up. <yada> people, again.. but a different issue. When we tag people (example: is a French lawyers) it is routine to link as [[French people|French]] [[lawyer]]]s. Looking at the articles, this is not always correct. For example Romesh Ranganathan is an English actor. He was born in Crawley, West Sussex, England. He is now and has always been a citizen of England. By practice, he would be linked as English people|English but he does not meet the criteria for English people. Ethnically he is Indian not English. Citizenship: English, not Indian; Ethnically Indian, not English. He is far from a corner case. Most countries have citizens who are not of the ethnic nationality. Chinese Canadians, filipino Americans, black Irish/English/etc, funny Germans.. wait they dont exist, do they? (other than Henning Wehn) The list goes on and on. The people articles all need to show that ethnicity is only one way to be considered of that group. Ethnicity is not the exclusive determiner. Bad enough that Elon Musk is African-American (though not African American) and may one day be Martian-African-American and yet he will never be ethnically Martian but he could be Martian people.

Also of issue is nations with 2 main ethnic groups and ethic groups with more than one country. In the late 1940s, a person was Indian if they lived on one side of a line and Pakistani if they lived on the other. Ethically they were often the same. In many cases, 2 members of the same family would be in two different groupings. Ethnically they are practically identical but by nationality they are very different. Ranganathan and his grand parents are all ethnically the same, but one is English while the others are Indian. - Creol (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see the problem, but is there a solution you can recommend? WP:ETHNICITY (enWP) seems to be a good guideline to follow, it seems as if nationality is weighed more heavily than nationalityethnicity. Griff (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) edited by Griff 07:23 26 March

The one I can think of it to ensure that the articles contain both sides of the coin. ie. French people are those of French ethicity. <expand on that this means> A person is also French if the are a citizen of France. <cover the rule that define citizenship in France.> As to WP:Ethnicity, I think nationality and nationality carry the same weight there. :) --Creol(talk) 02:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I hate my life. It's too early, and I agree as to the articles. That seems to be a bigger undertaking, but I like the approach. Griff (talk) 07:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Place of birth is primary in Britain, but not the only consideration. A person of Indian heritage born in the British Isles is legally British, not Indian. Less clear is someone born in India who is permanently resident in England (say). He/she can get British citizenship, which means they are treated as if they were born in the UK. Other variations are possible. You can have permanent residency even if you are still a citizen of another country. Permanent residency means you can visit the country of your birth, and still return to the UK to live. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the article on citizenship could cover the difference between natural (automatic citizenship reasons) verses naturalized (went through legal processes to become a citizen) while the people articles can cover what the specific country defines each term as. (does birth in a country give citizenship, what are the basic steps to become a citizen of <nation>, etc) The citizenship section of the people article would also cover things like permanent resident, resident aliens (and/or sanctuary), work visas, etc - other ways people can live in the county without technically being a citizen. --Creol(talk) 20:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, an article on citizenship has to give citizenship primary place. Nationality is usually cognate with citizenship, in most cases, if you are born there, you have its citizenship. But see Peter Medawar for an exception. There are some variations between countries. Residency has many variations between countries. The extreme case is the European Union, where you can move house to anywhere you like in the Community without any permission. There are also many unstated differences. Citizenship gives you few rights in some countries! There is sometimes a great difference between the written law and the applied administration. The supreme example is the Russian Federation's less well known oblasts, ruled in practice by bosses rather than by law.

You raised the issue of ethnicity. That's not easy to use as a category in the UK because we have many people of mixed ethnicity (so does the United States; so even does Sweden!). Ethnicity is no longer a simple category to use, and perhaps should be dropped as a category. Or we have to say "mixed" when to list it all would not be possible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I have never been a fan of categorizing by most ethnicities. While there is paperwork and other documentation for nationality (for the most part), it would often take a DNA test to determine ethnicity with true certainty in many cases.

Oddly looking at citizenship, I learned something earlier today. Birth alone is not certain grounds for becoming a British citizen. In the US, you are automatically a citizen if you were born on US soil, no matter what the status of your parents was (visiting on visa? day trip to Detroit from Windsor> just snuck over the boarder and popped out a kid in the desert? All the kids are US citizens!) According the the UK.gov site (its ref'd on the British people article), there can be other hoops you need to jump through other than just being born there. For most its enough, but not for all. --Creol(talk) 08:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Requests for flood discussion

Hi everyone, I've started a discussion about being able to have the flood right requested on Discord as well as AN, IRC or an admin's talk page as we currently have it. Feel free to get involved in the discussion here. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

French Communes

Out of curiosity, why do we have so many articles on or relating to French Communes? It's not just one user, from what I can find it's a couple of users and an IP who mostly does this. When I get bored and click on "show an page" a bunch of times, however, most of the time a French Commune shows up. Why? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 03:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh young one, this goes back 15 years to the days of Yottie. Why we still have people making them, I have no idea. They have been sent to RFD many times and been declined. Basically at one point, someone made it their mission to have articles on all of them, and so that's what we got. They claim inherent notability and they are easy to mass create, so here they remain. Any of the OGs (DJ, eptalon, creol), feel free to chime in. I think Yottie is the one that started it though. At one point, they made up over 15% (or much more) of the project I believe. Griff (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, Gay Yong Hernandez created thousands of French commune pages, mainly logged out though, which will probably be the reason that so many you see are made by IPs. --Ferien (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

:O we are still seeing them created, possible block evasion? Griff (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, it all comes from one IPv6 /48 range. The IPv4s are not the same editor as far as I'm aware. --Ferien (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Originally, several of them were autocreated 'X is a place in Y', in the United States. While in Euorpe, they are usually houses gouped around a church, and even small villages can have histories of several hundred years, in the U.S, there's this concept of 'group of houses'. In the end, we settled that all greographoc places are notable. Very long story, go read the archives. As to the one, possibly several editors creating articles on French communes: Atm they no longer looks like they get created automatically, so I see no reason to block the range. I also added two or three details to some of them (Gonesse, near Paris is where Concorde crashed, in the 2000s). And no ,I don't know if Yottie started it. Eptalon (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with an article

I recently created a page, Adobe Premiere Pro, but the only words that can be used to describe it are not in the 500 simple words, such as video, editing, or software, but as far as I can see there are no replacements, how do I write about it? Lallint (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint See WP:HOW. We don't insist on using only simple English words. There are times where we do have to use words not in that list. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint: An effort should be made to write in language that is as simple as possible. That involves not only what words are used, but also how simple or complex the sentence structure is. The word lists are a good starting place, but I find that language can be simple while using words that aren't on the lists.

When you must use a word that isn't simple, often you can link it to another article (for example, there is the article software) or explain it in the article. Some people will also link to Wiktionary entries, but that can cause issues because 1) it makes people have to go to another site to find the meaning and 2) if we ever create an article for the term it's unlikely that the Wiktionary link would be found and changed to a local article link. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership Development Working Group: Reminder to apply by 10 April 2022

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to advise leadership development work. Feedback was collected in February 2022 and a summary of the feedback is on Meta-wiki. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and is closing soon on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the working group, share with community members who might be interested, and apply if you are interested.

Thank you,

From the Community Development team

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection, regarding WiiConnect24

Hello, I am wondering if the WiiConnect24 parts belong in the main WFC article, or if it should be in a dedicated WiiConnect24 article instead. Also looking for criticism regarding the article itself. kolva | chat? 15:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Primary critizism would be "Link?" - Alway give a link to the article(s) being talked about so people can go look. A page this size makes it annoying to have to scroll to the top to navigate. Here, have this one - Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. As to the secong topic, I would suggest combining some of the smaller sections where possible. there are a lot of 1 or 2 senntence sections in there. If some of them have a common thread, you may be able to combine them. On the primary topic, that would fall under some general questions - are you going to provide enough useful info that it needs a page of its own. Is there enough available? how much of the availible do you intend to use? Will its inclusiong overpower the main article or make it confusing? will spliting off the info be confusing? Consider each of these questions when deciding to split or not. Personally, I don't see there being a lot of demand for info on a service that was killed off nearly a decade ago. Some interest? sure. Enough for a section in an article? certainly. Enough for an entire article on the subject? probably not. --Creol(talk) 05:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Number formating

Info update: Several of our Election and referendum infobox templates are being a tad.. irksome. Some format the number of vote while others do not. This leads to articles getting tossed into Category:Pages with non-numeric formatnum arguments if the template formats numbers and the entry for votes is not raw. (raw = 123456 vs formated = 123,456) Big problem here is that some format (causing the error) and others dont (no error but possible raw display). We need all of the templates to either format or not, and then have a bot run through and have all the vote counts with with or without the comma.

Also looking at the formatnum error cat, there are host of French commumities there as well. These seem to have been created a couple years back and their infoboxes are causing an issue. The infobox itelf seems fine so updating it wont help. The problem seems in our data. On preview, the erticles pop a ton of unsupported parameter errors. Refreshing the article to the current En. infobox settings seems to correct both the unknown paramerters and the formatnum error. It also make for a prettier and more up-to-date infobox. An other side project if someone gets bored.

There were over 2K various errors in that cat to start with. Many large groups caused by either templates or users being consistant in entering info is a format the system doesnt like. Updating templates can help for some of the errors but not all. 200+ were trimmed out with one update earlier but the settlements is an entry issue with a working template and the elections are a bit of both... --Creol(talk) 20:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Creol: {{formatnum}} errors are triggered when the first parameter is not a number, like Foo, [[1]] or, our problem, {{{1}}}. This is exactly why I prefer giving parameters a null default value: {{formatnum:{{{1|}}}}} is equivalent to {{formatnum:}} and causes no harm at all. About templates, I think we can also wrap all parameters in another {{formatnum:}} layer with |R specified: {{formatnum:{{formatnum:100,000|R}}}} and {{formatnum:{{formatnum:100000|R}}}} both gives 100,000 with no errors. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The fun part here is trying to get them all.. shifting the sections as I find them to {{formatnum:{{formatnum:{{{votes}}}|R}}}} seems to work fine for stipping out the format (if any) and then formating. Clears up those with just a single format command as it now has a raw number to work with and for those that werent useing format in the first place, it doesnt seem to be a problem. The only prob right now is getting all that need it and waiting for the changes to be propagated and affect the cat. Null edit look promising but oh so slow.. --Creol(talk) 04:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

And more fun stuff. Finding tiny slip ups in various template. One only when dealing with rainfall is listed in Australia... that took bit. In some cases I fixed it and moved on, in others I located the issue, weighed the pros and cons and acted or didnt. French places dont list population density atm.. if someone wants to fix that one up.. still a host of things to sift through try to find clues. --Creol(talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Creol: It seems that you forgot to give parameters blank values as default: {{formatnum:{{formatnum:{{{votes|}}}|R}}}}. That very pipe will save us from fixing one by one. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The pipe was omit on purpose. For elections, a null value is not acceptable. Even 0 votes would be acceptable but null is impossible. As such, the option to accept null is not actually an option. It could be defaulted to zero but that just lets the user be sloppy and could lead to more issues. In some of the other cases ive found, the use of formatnum is conditional on the existance of a parameter. In those cases, there will always be a value since a value was needed to get to the format command in the first place. ie. {{#if: parm |formaty parm | nothing}}. if parm was nul, then the if fails and never gets to the format parm. Format parm| serves no purpose there.

As is, nearly all of the election issues were cleared. Couple corner cases: the |R doesnt seem to clear bold so bolded votes need to be cleaned. And of course, 1400+ other articles with seperate issues.. But over 500 cleared already --Creol(talk) 08:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Creol: We can detect those too. Use {{#ifeq:{{padleft:{{{votes}}}}}|'|tracking category}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 08:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I have no clue if there are enough of them to make it worth the effort. Currently stumped on {{INRConvert}} but at 48 pages, its not high on the list so Ill let it be for a while. --Creol(talk) 08:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Most wanted pages" thing in new changes tab

In the new pages tab under the "review tools" in the "page requests" section, will articles that were made update? Or is it just going to show articles that you have made forever? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMeAndMrMe (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

They are updated manually. They were last updated in November 2021 -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Most wanted page is updated fairly regularly at 2x a month. Thankfully its automatic now. I used to redo the list monthly by hand.. took many hours of formating sql queries. With the sheer number of pages on the list, 2x a month is more than often enough. and not having to do it by hand. Beyond awesome. The rest of the listings though are another story entirely. The actual list is found at Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Most Wanted and, as Fehufangą said, has not been updated since 5 Nov 2021. The main page is protected from edits, but the subpage is not. This would allow some ambitious soul to update it on a relular bases or at least wheneve it turns all blue. --Creol(talk) 05:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The most time consuming part of updating the list is ensuring variety. Many of the pages on the list are caused by nav templates. This causes lumps of the same basic thing up and down the list. For a variety, you need to pick through the list and try for a wide range of things so they are more likely to be created as the appeal to a wider variety of people. Though if you wanted to just do communes in Nord.. more power to you, pick one and use the nav template for a list of needed articles.

Anyway, List updated. --Creol(talk) 06:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The articles come from Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded. If you notice each of the comments on the page match to a section on this page. We just grab one out of each section to update. The articles don't always get updated super fast on purpose, because generally the created ones are left there to give a bit of a nudge to get the non-created ones created rather than remove them when they haven't been. That being said I was slower with it the last little bit than I usually am. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Where I can creating new article this Simple Wikipedia?

Hello, users, I don’t where is I can creating new article? Thank you --Usernogood (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

See Help:Starting a new page. Deppiyy (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deppiyy: Thank you! I will able to creating new articles —-Usernogood (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Navseasoncats

I have no idea what's going on with Template:Navseasoncats. It is coming up with "Lua error: too many expensive function calls" and nothing else is showing. Can anyone fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMeAndMrMe (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I had to get some help from enWP's tech people on this, but I fixed the error here. It was resulting from an issue within the template doc, which in turn was because all the non-existent examples were causing an issue with the Lua module that makes our documentation pages.. or something like that. I'm sure one of the tech admins can explain it in a better way. Anyways, it's fixed, let me know if you have any other issues. Griff (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Flood tag

Can I have a flood tag ? I want to make subcategories for people from German states/cities. MathXplore (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you still need this? Griff (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes please, I was waiting for someone to respond. MathXplore (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done for one hour. No controversial editing and stay on task please :) If you need more time or finish early, post here. However in the future, please request at AN. Thanks! Griff (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Done for today. I'll ask at AN from next time. MathXplore (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Romanization

While editing some Korea-related articles, I noticed that some of the Korean words used nonstandard romanization. For example, 訓民正音/훈민정음 is romanized as Hoon min jung um. Revised romanization romanizes this as Hunminjeongeum. The nonstandard romanization – when pronounced in an English manner - does come close to the actual Korean pronunciation. I also noticed that romanization styles seem to be inconsistent; while certain parts of an article use respellings, others use the revised romanization. So I'm asking here: is it better to use anglicized respellings, or to use the standard romanizations? Using respellings does have the advantage that it's somewhat close to the Korean pronunciation. Using revised romanization keeps things consistent. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

enWP has a MOS guideline for precisely this scenario. I think it addresses your question, but basically, the way I read it, we should be not be using non-standard romanisation. Let me know if there's anything that the guideline doesn't cover or if I didn't answer your question:/ Griff (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. I wasn't really sure because there are some merits of using respelling. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 15:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If you truly want to record how the word is pronounced, use the International phonetic alphabet? Eptalon (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd use IPA to transcribe the subject's name in the article lead, but it might be too much in the article body, as most Sino-Korean words are already written using two writing systems: Hangul (such as 훈민정음) and Hanja (such as 訓民正音). -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Indians!

Today, the 2nd April, 2022 of Gregorian calendar coincides with various new year days celebrated across the Indian subcontinent. To all the Indian Wikipedians, I wish a very happy new year! @Prajjwal3959: Happy Chaitra Navaratri! :-) @Awangba Mangang and Luwanglinux: Happy Sajibu Cheiraoba! :-) @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ: Happy Ugadi! :-) @Tiven2240: Happy Gudi Padwa! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Haoreima and i wish you in advance a very Happy Meitei New Year Cheiraoba :) Prajjwal3959 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Happy Indian New Year's days to all wikipedia-users, and I wish you in advance Happy "Southern-hemisphere New Year's day". 89.8.96.201 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Autocite

Does anyone know if there is a place to comment about issues with the citing tool? Overall its a godsend as often rather than try to clean up a mess someone left, I can just copy the url or DOI and have the system do it all for me. The two issues that I see often are:

1. When faced with a month-year format, it replies with YYYY-MM rather than Month YYYY 1953-10 vs October 1953. The first format causes an error, the second not. 1953-10-01 it likes fine but without a day, the system wants it as Month YYYY.
2. PMC values. It always returns the PMC value as PMC###### rather than just #####. This also leads to an error.

Neither are big issues and can be dealt with easily enough manually. It is still easier than fixing the author list in the first place. It just gets irksome after a while. --Creol(talk) 21:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the RefToolbar? That page may have the help you need. Griff (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not realy that. Edit in visual mode=> cursor over an inline ref=> open it and click edit=> copy the DOI=> go back to "change ref type"=> select automatic and enter the copied info. The system looks up that info an autofills an appropriate cite template then you approve inserting it. Then you go back and edit it because it created errors with the wrong date and PMC values... This part is the issue. It should be putting the correctly formatted values in there. #if date= yyyy-mm then date= <monthname> yyyy, and PMC= PMC>######. --Creol(talk)

Idea

Why don't we do an award thing or something? Derpdart56 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Dingo^Talk 19:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean something like English Wikipedia's Editor of the Week? or more generally, anything from WP:AWARDS? -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fehufanga: We have so few editors that Editor of the Week would run out of people before very long. Unless you wanted repeats, but that could get old. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a Wikipedian of the year? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Derpdart56: We have the barnstar awards. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We do have Good and Very good articles, which usually take quite some time to prepare, there is the Do you know? section which as become a little more active recently. Then there's the translation of the week. What exactly do you have in mind? Eptalon (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we please decide on and archive the redirect disscussion?

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.

Discussion closed by me. Griff (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Original thread:
The discussion has become stale, and most of the talking points have been treaded. Can we decide on something? Derpdart56 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No matter what we do, the bot will auto-archive the discussion, after 14 days of inactivity. Eptalon (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that redirects should, at least be in one of the 300 or so wikimedia languages. It should also be likely and something that someone should use. Not many redirects have been made since then, so if it does become a problem, someone can RfD it if they want and the community will decide individually. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 22:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Too soon, to draw many conclusions from the redirect discussion (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=8143270).--The discussion is a large documentation of the number of people who see some current problems (and perhaps larger problems in the future).--Around one (new) dubious redirect has been pointed out since the last day of March 2022.--I see no problem with auto-archiving after 14 days (while one might expect general redirect-problems to re-ignite, later).--If anyone wants to become a wiki-politician - trying to broker a consensus about redirects, then it is not a sure way to success.--See ya about 1 day after auto-archiving (which for now is scheduled around the middle of April) because that is when one expects anyone to be testing the waters, so to speak; Or see ya earlier (if a sucky redirect comes our way). 89.8.96.201 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.96.201 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe I simply don't see any consensus to do anything up there. How's there a consensus 'that redirects should, at least be in one of the 300 or so wikimedia languages'? BRP ^ever 01:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@BRPever Most people(not all) agree with proposal seven, as far as I can see. Others think that it should be more specific, but I'm fairly certain that almost everybody says that there should be at least be in one of the wikimedia languages.

Other than that, I see most people agreeing with proposal five, but less so. In my opinion, proposal five goes both ways in that the community will decide each one individually and most(not all) agree with it, as far as I can see. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case unless you ignore everything until "the Gathering all of the thoughts" section. Proposal 7 is vague, impossible to keep track of, and is lot of unnecessary effort. I don't understand why people are so hell-bent on belief that something needs to be done here. Based on what I see, this is completely unnecessary waste of time. If something has no harm and has some use (no matter how little), why do we need to go ahead and come up with something to prevents it? I think we have had enough discussion on the topic, but there is no valid argument (not even one) on why we need to come up with something. There is already a policy. Why don't we just follow that?-- BRP ^ever 02:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

By this logic, Breetish folk should be deleted as it is not the official language that area. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 02:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Many wikipedia-users are not willing to give a free-card so that any city and any settlement and any topic can have redirects in many/most/all of the 300+ wiki-languages. (If that means that (the bastardized phrase) "Breetish folk", can not be kicked out for other reasons - and will remain as an open wound - then so be it.) 89.8.96.201 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) 89.8.96.201 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Wikiproject video games

I would like to "remake" this thing, as the current version of it is quite stale. Derpdart56 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to, WikiProjects are an unofficial thing here. The original creator of the WikiProject is no longer active, you can just take over the leadership. -- *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

....so should i move it to my userspace? Derpdart56 (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

hear ye hear ye, i've come to make an announcement. as of today, wikiproject video games is gonna be expanded on and hopefully more active. --Derpdart56 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

All rise for the royal announcer, may Derpdart56 live long and prosper. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

hah Derpdart56 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

So here's something interesting: There's a pokemon wikiproject. Doesn't look like it's been updated since 2008 though. Derpdart56 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe @Fehufanga What do we do regarding this? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably just leave it as be, as it's already in the scope of our project. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 18:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. Derpdart56 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists

We have a host of list articles with on major thing in common. They are just a random collection of entries. There is no attempt to be thorough in coverage. The batch of scientist articles and nationality articles are prime examples of this. We have a list of scientists that does not include Einstein.. Ask anyone to name a scientist you will most often get names like Einstein, Hawking, Bill Nye, Brian Cox or deGrasse Tyson yet want to guess how many of thee names we say are scientists? Looking at the lower teir articles, the names chosen is certainly questionable and those omited from the list can often be mind blowing.

The first thing about lists is they should be comprehensive. They should as close to a complete listing as possible. Major glaring omitions must be avoided. What good is a "List of Nintendo consoles" without noting, say, the NES or Wii? The works of Shakespeare? lets just omit Romeo and Juliet. It would be one thing if the list was defined to not include everything/one or if the omitions were niche, corner cases, easily over looked, we don't have an article on it, etc. but in many of these cases we are talking about what is basically the central core of the article's subject.

Side point: Most lists are just a collection of links with little to no prose at all. Other than where the links point, there is nothing about them that is not identical to the en.wiki article. Just a collection of links which is practically identical to an existing article on another wiki.. --Creol(talk) 17:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, we shouldn't be hosting enWP lists unless we have a simpler version. Otherwise, we will just end up an older version of their list anyways. For lists with scopes so broad they could never be comprehensive, I would RFD them. Griff (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

List of numbers I think is a good list that exists and might be an exception to that. It explains things, is actually a simplified version, etc and I don't see any major updates to enwiki version. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The link to where user:Creol can make his arguments to delete the List of scientists article, is Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#List_of_scientists.--If something looks like discussion-spreading and quacks like a discussion-spreading and walks like a discussion-spreading, then likely it is a form of spreading a discussion (and thereby contrary to wikipedia guidelines). 89.8.140.87 (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the place to go is Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/List of scientists. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote published

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

The Trust and Safety Policy team published the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote. The vote ended 21 March 2022. See the results and read more on Meta-wiki.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Twinkle

In Twinkle's QD function, one of the top reasons is "custom". First of all, it's broke and causes an error category when used (defines "1=" two times). More importantly,` why is it even an option, especially at the top of the list. Use of it basically says "I want this article quick deleted but the policy doesn't support it so ill make my own reason". Now, there could be a valid reason behind a request not supported by policy but these cases should be extremely few and not warrant having this be the first entry. QD has rules to be followed. They should not be made up on the fly. --Creol(talk) 16:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you happen to know where in the Twinkle code it is causing this error? As for the custom reason, I agree, however this is how enWP uses it too. We could move it to the bottom I guess? Griff (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If I knew where the error was, I would have fixed it. I have no clue where the code even is. All I know is that it defines the same parameter 2x (1=db and then immediately after that 1=reason) which causes an error. --Creol(talk) 17:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

┌───┘
This has something to do with line 947 and line 1536 of twinklespeedy.js. 946's 'reason' is the first unnamed (or unnumbered) parameter, while 1536 gives |1= the value retrieved from "Please enter a custom reason" prompt. This can be simply fixed by using a small, hacky trick; replace 'reason' with a non-exist parameter along with an equal sign, like this: '$foo='. That way, Twinkle will insert {{qd|$foo=|1=reason|editor=Example|date=01:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 03:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Djsasso, can you look into this? Administrators do not have access to change TW javascript settings. Griff (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into it, not sure inserting a fake param is the way to go but I will see what I can do when I get a chance. As to Creol's asking why it exists, its not for a reason not covered by policy, its so you can explain why you think it meets a given QD reason if you think you need to give a reason beyond the canned reason. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Takes less time than rewriting existing functions, despite not being recommended. May be we can add a real new parameter to {{qd}} and then to Twinkle accordingly? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Opinions needed

In the article Documents on the Persian Gulf's name, 10k of the articles 40K size is a gallery of images from Commons. Personally I don't see how having every image from the book helps tell what the book is. A few example, yes. 10L worth.. extreme overkill. This aside (though not forgotten), somewhere in that mess is an error. Its a lint error and not easy to trim down without a lot of trial and error. (tried searching and got nowhere). I removed the images as they were both troublesome and not really helpful. This was reverted. Rather than war over it, I turn here for outside opinions on dealing with the matter. --Creol(talk) 23:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah there is no reason for this many images. IIRC, there is a guideline for this on en, but its existence may just be a figment of my imagination MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 23:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the images should be trimmed. In addition, not all of the media files are from the book, such as the sound clips and the more modern vector maps. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I mean... yeah that is clearly excessive. Choose 3 or 4 of the more interesting images, add Template:Commons, and remove the rest. I'd recommend keeping File:Persian Empire Abraham Ortelius.jpg, File:1580s pictorial map by Heinrich Bünting, depicting Asia as Pegasus.jpg, File:Jansson's map of Persia..jpg, and File:Persia Kingdom Ormus Strait Hormuz Old plan Bellin 1756.jpg, just because they stand out as interesting to me. But that's a pretty random collection. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely too many images. A selection showing the variety of kinds of things would be good, maybe no more than a dozen or so. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking deeper at this behemoth just brings up more issues that are pushing me to RfD it. Large chunks are ripped directly from copywritten sites that he was nice enough to include in the refs. Google checks of complete sentences pulled up a duplicate to what we have word for word on Wikibooks. Well pulled up "the ghost of" actually. Wikibooks has since nuked it with a bunch of other things created by a problem user. --Creol(talk) 01:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Noting enWP guideline IG, this gallery is beyond ridiculous. I recommend eliminating the section entirely, there's plenty of images already. The gallery should then be moved to Commons with a link to it. Creol, it may be useful to check for copy/pasting from faWP, this article looks very similar to that one. Griff (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ask to created an article

Hi there Auto biographie est deconseille sur wikipedia et l artcile DJ Parisa a plusieurs fois ete efface Auriez vous la gentillesse d arranger ce probleme je vous en serais tres reconnaisante en attendant une reponse favorable de votre part je vous souhaite une excellente journee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.203.142.20 (talk • contribs)

Hi there Autobiography is not recommended on wikipedia and the article DJ Parisa has been deleted several times Would you be kind enough to fix this problem I would be very grateful to you while waiting for a favorable response from you I wish you a great day

— translated from French

The article on DJ Parissa was deleted because is did not show any reason that he was notable. This is likely the reason other wikipedias have also deleted it. If he does not meet notability guidelines, any article about him is likely to be deleted quickly. Constantly re-creating the article can lead to an editor being blocked for being disruptive. --Creol(talk) 22:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

L'article sur DJ Parissa a été supprimé car il n'a montré aucune raison pour laquelle il était notable. C'est probablement la raison pour laquelle d'autres wikipedias l'ont également supprimé. S'il ne respecte pas les directives de notabilité, tout article le concernant est susceptible d'être supprimé rapidement. Recréer constamment l'article peut entraîner le blocage d'un éditeur pour cause de perturbation.

— google translate better not be embarrassing me, Creol

Bonjour, il y a un tas d'articles qui ont été effacés sur ce sujet (DJ Parisa, DJ Mixify, Parisa Mixify,...) sur une période de quelques années. L'argument était toujours le même: L'article ne donnait pas assez de sources qu'un editeur normal puisse juger cette personne comme imprtante, ou méritant l'inclusion dans cette encyclopédie. Il y as d'autees politiques, comme celle que vous citez, comme quoi on n'ecrit pas un article sur soi-même ou sur un proche. Donc, c'est probablement le moment de se dire qu'il y a tant d'autres articles que cette encyclopédie manque, et que vous pourriez créer...--Eptalon (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 6

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 6, April 2022Read the full newsletter

---

Welcome to the sixth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board of trustees elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

• Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
• Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
• Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
• Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reach out to us! (continue reading)
• The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
• Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
• Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about Movement Strategy on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Translating" articles

Hello, there are some wikipedia articles on the English Wikipedia that I think would be good to have as articles here. If I were going to create them, is it okay to kind of "translate" what's written in the English ones into simple English and make them here, or is it better to start from scratch? Thank you! Notcharizard (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharizard Hello, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! You can choose do it either way. If you are simplifying an article from the English Wikipedia, make sure you give proper credit. You can do this in your edit summary by linking to the revision which you're translating from, or use the {{translated}} template on the article's talkpage. Personally, I find that writing things from scratch is easier, but it's up to you. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 03:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you very much for your help :) -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Notcharizard: Translated articles are very welcome here. But taking regular English and simplifying it is often harder than just looking at the sources directly and writing original work. When the en.wiki article seems to be using the perfect word, it's hard to take it out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, I have both used the "translation tool", and started articles from scratch. I think both have their benefits and drawbacks:

• If you are able to describe what you want, in a few easy-to-understand sentences, you are probably faster, starting from scratch. You are completely free as to structure of the article. An example of an article that was done that way is Overfishing.
• If you are looking at a bigger article, the translation tool may be an option. Look at the article Prostitution in Afghanistan - I started with the translation tool, and later re-edited most of the article, to cut away another 20-25%. An example that shows that it doesn't work all the time is Cinderella effect. EnWp has a large article on it, and I translated some, but what we now have is a summary (which has little to do with the original translation). An example where it is obvious it doesn't work is Islamic feminism: the EnWp article is basically a literature summary: This author said that, but that author said something else. Not really a good example of what an article should be. An example where it worked quite well is Nutri-Score.

Keep in mind though that articles from EnWp have their own issues, as to unnecessary complexity; using the translation tool you'll get an article that is closer to the EnWp original. In any case, re-editing after publication is needed, as the tool itself isn't free of errors. Keep in mind, that no matter what method you use, the article can always be improved, or it can be deleted, if it doesn't work at all.--Eptalon (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Join the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan conversations with Maryana Iskander

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello,

The Movement Communications and Movement Strategy and Governance teams invite you to discuss the 2022-23 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan, a plan of record for the Wikimedia Foundation's work.

These conversations continue Maryana Iskander's Wikimedia Foundation Chief Executive Officer listening tour.

The conversations are about these questions:

• The 2030 Wikimedia Movement Strategy sets a direction toward "knowledge as a service" and "knowledge equity". The Wikimedia Foundation wants to plan according to these two goals. How do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should apply them to our work?

• The Wikimedia Foundation continues to explore better ways of working at a regional level. We have increased our regional focus in areas like grants, new features, and community conversations. What is working well? How can we improve?
• Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy process. Let's collect your activities, ideas, requests, and lessons learned. How can the Wikimedia Foundation better support the volunteers and affiliates working in Movement Strategy activities?

You can find the schedule of calls on Meta-wiki.

The information will be available in multiple languages. Each call will be open to anyone to attend. Live interpretation will be available in some calls.

Best regards,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

LTA database

Considering how frequently it happens, perhaps a database of these is necessary. Some have already, I know vermont has one or two. But as it stands I think we need a centralized database for this cataloging them. Derpdart56 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If not in WP space, I could do it in my userspace (though probably not a good idea). Derpdart56 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Derpdart56 There already is one, but it is not public, and it should probably stay that way. Etoza (?) 10:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to continue too much discussion about long-term vandals on-wiki (per WP:DENY) but Etoza, I haven't heard of this private database... --Ferien (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a long-term abuse database here is a good idea, in Wikipedia: space or in userspace. There is a database on enwiki when abuse is harder to spot, but most of the time, LTAs here are just vandalism or vandalism but worse, and we should deny recognition where possible. We don't even need to identify which LTA someone is, we only need to think have we seen behaviour just like this before and block them. --Ferien (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need it. Let's just block and ignore. Wasting time on them is giving them what they want.- BRP ^ever 11:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

We do have very few of what I would call 'persistent problem editors': These editors cause some problems, and get blocked; then they either try to get around the block ('block evasion'), or they wait till the block expires, after which they are back, and again show the problematic behavior that got them blocked in the first place. Off the top of my head I can think of perhaps 3-5 of them, which the admins know (or recognise easily, because of editing patterns). I don't think that we need to keep track of them onwiki; also note: if there's some page that associates IPs and usernames, this section neeeds to be limited to the checkusers we have.--Eptalon (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Lists of TV programs

I mean yeah, we should have the current and former ones but upcoming programs? Derpdart56 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you're talking about? Griff (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Birth templates

Can we please make United Kingdom, Asian, Australian, Mexican and Canadian biographic birth templates here, please? We need consensus before such can be made on this Wikipedia.

I'd like me and other Simple English Wikipedia operators, please, to make up and create new geographical area birth templates. When I tried making a United Kingdom region biography stub in February and March 2019, I was informed there needed to actually be an agreement before doing so. That is one of several reasons I ask my question here. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 16:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Can you give an enwiki link? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 16:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tropical Storm Angela: Would you please clarify what you're asking for? In one sentence you mention "geographical area birth templates" (I'm not sure what those are), but in the next you mention "United Kingdom region biography stub".

Are you asking about creating a new stub type? The place to get a new stub type approved is Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. Before asking for approval, it would be helpful to read the other requests there to get an idea of what is required, and also to read Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project. If that's not what you're asking for, please explain more. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

89.8.0.0/15

What happened to 89.8.X.X? It's been awhile since I've seen them on simple-wiki. From the topic in the noticeboard It seemed like they are a troll of some sort? Dingo^Talk 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Shh.... --Creol(talk) 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The user in question was given a short term block for violating a user conduct policy and did not return after the block expired. Griff (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP is back, returning to old habits. Deppty (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, time for another block, it would seem. They are very disruptive. Gotanda (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion now seems to be in the hands of another thread [1]. 89.8.154.30 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)