Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 153

Writer vs author

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

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

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

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

I guess author, because it sounds more professional for an encyclopedia. But writer, for authors of written works, sounds reasonable. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not about sounding professional. It is about what is easier for the reader to understand, especially with a limited vocabulary. Pure Evil (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

That still suggests that author should be used. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

To me, it suggests that writer should be used. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We have "Category:Writers". We seem to not have, "Category:Authors". Fine!--Now, please enlighten me: Are there cases of authors, who have never been writers? 46.15.21.93 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You can have an author without being a writer. Take the example of a company president dictating a letter to a secretary. The secretary is the writer but the president is the author. fr33kman 17:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The secretary is doing the physical writing, but I don't think they'd be called a writer for doing that. For our purposes, author and writer mean the same thing; they mean the person who composes a piece of writing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Legally that must be so. The whole of copyright law depends on it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It must be author. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Writer is easier for English learners, because they will probably know the verb write and the suffix -er and be able to figure out what the word means if they don't already know it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Fine, I will agree, but I am fluent to english and for me it is challenging to write in simple english. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes people don't understand that writing in simple language is harder. People who are learning English sometimes assume that any English they know must be simple just because they don't know much English. People who are fluent in English think that any writing that is clear must be simple enough. Neither of those is necessarily true.

An offshoot of this is that people in our target audience (people whose English skills are limited) are often not able to write well here, for different reasons. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"Writer" has the advantage of coming from the "basic" verb "write." "Author" has the advantage of having more cognates in Indo-European languages. Since 1950, "author has maintained about a double frequency in books according to Google n-gram viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=writer%2C+author&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3). Kdammers (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That does not mean it is simple. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Writer is a more frequent word than author, and word frequency is strongly related to comprehension. Our 1500 word list has "writing". "Author" is not there. We went over this kind of thing years ago. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I quit, do whatever you like :( 88.110.38.249 (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Chenzw bot reverting

People keep reverting my additions of phylogenetic trees and simiplifications, I think, sinde chenzw bot is an automated program, it is making mistakes, sorry if I am not putting this discussion on WIkipedia:AN. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at your edits to bird, the bot reverted typos, poor grammar. and unlinking/renaming of terms on an edit tagged for removing references.. I fail to see any problem there. Should I recheck your other recent edits to see if the bot is targetting you or if you are triggering it as you did on Bird? Pure Evil (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed refs removing complex sentences, typos and/or poor grammar could have been just fixed by another editor. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: as a automated program, chenzwbot make mistakes. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

And you are a human. They tend to make a lot more mistakes. Many of these are fixed by automatic programs. If you want it to stop fixing your errors, stop triggering it. YOU are causing it to clean up your mess. Pure Evil (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  I have to say that chenzwbot is throwing the baby out with the bathwater! 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You probably should not expect the bot to search through pile of dung to see if someone left anything valuable in there. The job of the bot is to clean up crap, not mine for copper plated coins. And if that baby is drowned, bloated and reeking, it needs to go. Pure Evil (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

But it reverts some constructive edits >:( 88.110.38.249 (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Which are covered in offal and stink to high heaven. What little good is in them is massively overshadowed by the bad. Its a net win to remove the whole thing. A person could redo the entire edit to not suck entirely, but that requires manpower we do not have. The bot cleans up the obvious garbage without the (non available) manpower needed to pick through the mess for the random tidbits of actual useful info. Over all, the wiki is better without these edits than with them as the are more negative than positive. Pure Evil (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Im trying to be helpful. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"Sonia"

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

Are you asking someone to move Sonia to Sonia (singer)? I can do that, if you want. You can't move pages, because you need to have an account and be autoconfirmed. Kk.urban (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Move, without redirect? Yes, please (that is my question). 2001:2020:341:C4EB:75FE:6DC4:C132:3B81 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the page with a redirect. Now just replace the redirect with a disambiguation page. Kk.urban (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, when you copy a page here, even a disambiguation page, please be sure to simplify the text. I just did some simplifying on this one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

and if you are going to disambig two movies, name each one with the year. Sonia (1943 movie) and Sonia (1952 movie) not Sonis (movie) and Sonis (movie). Pure Evil (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

TV production terms

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

Premier in the context of christmas special

Executive producer/producer

show runner

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

@OlifanofmrTennant: More context would help with some of these. If you mean premiere (note the E on the end -- a premier is a head of government) of a stand-alone special, you could use first broadcast, where "broadcast" is either a noun or an adjective, depending on how you use it. For example, instead of either "The special premiered on <date>" or "The special's premiere was on <date>, say "The first time the special was on television was on <date>".

For the others, I'd want to see an example sentence using the term. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The article I'm trying to translate is [1] so that should provide context basicly its "blank" is the "blank" OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Two simple, one not asmuch.

• Premiere = broadcast for the first time. The link to broadcasting is there if they need it. That term is used since there is a link for it. I use it for the verb form of show/n and air as well as it is less ambiguous.
• Producer exists. I can't confirm it covers the topic well, but as Executive producer redirects to it, I would guess it does. That should work for both terms.
• Show runner is a bit trickier. It is not used frequently here. The term is used as a red link on one person and that red link is also targeted by 2 templates (doc pages) so a total of 5 uses. if I were to make a suggestion, it would be to make a section on Television program that covers the topic and have the red link redirect to that section. THere does not seem to be enough need for a full article so the section should cover it well enough.

Pure Evil (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about categories for countries at association football competitions

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

Should we send a talkback to the involved IP editors? MathXplore (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt. Do you know of an automated way to identify the IPs? I spot-checked 2 or 3 and it wasn't the same IP for all of them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there is an automated way to do that, but I understand that these are coming from IPs starting from 2407. I think it's an IP that frequently changes their address, but the first 4 digits are always same. MathXplore (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I just sent a talkback to the latest creator. I guess it is just one person making changes from this range. I see that most edits from the IPs starting from 2407 are category creations. If creations continue, then we may need to send another talkback to the latest IP. MathXplore (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"Translating" articles

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

Hi and yes, we often take information from enwiki and use it to create articles here by ensuring that we simplify the language. An important point to express is that the language we use should be easily read by 12-16 year olds and the article understandable by non-experts in the subject. Key guidelines to read are; WP:SI, WP:HOW & WP:CW. Thanks for coming by to help us expand this important project and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! fr33kman 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer and for the links :) I tried to do a Simple English version of an article I wrote on English Wikipedia for practice. It is in my sandbox. Can you tell me if the language is appropriate? (I am not sure what to do about the headings though). -- NotCharizard ^🗨 17:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The article in your sandbox looks good. Because you are a new user you can't use page move to move it into mainspace so you can use copy & paste to move it. Thanks for coming to the Simple English Wikipedia! :) fr33kman 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Their edit history here dates back at least until Apr 2022.. I don't think they are not still a new user here technically. Pure Evil (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of their having 9 edits since 2022. fr33kman 21:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the cut off 10? If so, they would be good just for being polite and posting a thank you. I tend to over look the number requirement as it is so easy to get past.. the time requirement at least is sort of something Pure Evil (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Article Wizard

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

I did some copy editing of the pages. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but we need to fix (or remove) that button. Can somebody with brains (ie: knows what they're doing) fix it? Please! fr33kman 04:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Could have it link to the WP:DISCORD server. Bobherry Talk My Changes 10:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bobherry: What about people who don't use Discord, like me? It should probably link to this page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone uses the IRC either and it can easily reveal peoples IP addresses. I think it should link to a new page that shows both of them and perhaps the helpme template and possibly suggest emailing some users. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The archive box on this page is messed up

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

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

Three identical templates

• {{See also cat}}
• {{Category see also}}
• {{Cat see also}}

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

Neptune is now a Very good article...

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

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

Pending changes protection on the administrator's noticeboard

Why is the page in question pending changes protected, the page is rarely, if ever, vandalised. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes protection doesn't exist on this wiki so that is impossible. --Ferien (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So why can't I see my own changes after editing the administrator's noticeboard. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I cannot see my edits on the administrator noticeboard, why is that. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The issues you are having may be on your side. I have not seen you publish any edits to the admins noticeboard since before you posted this talk message. --Ferien (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines

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

Lusatian – New Marchian dialects

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

Language is a thing they speak. It is one of the ways to get ideas across. From where I live (no, not the northeast of Germany), I can tell you that dialects can be very localized (in the sense that about 10km away, the dialect is different). Also, some dialects have no written form, and esp. in German, there are many regional varieties (some as far away as Romania, Paraguay, Namibia,...). So if you think that this is not a valid entry we can delete it. On the other hand, the source cited is from 1970, over 50 years ago. Don't you think that in two generations, a language or dialect changes? - With the additional problem that likely no one records that change, as we are talking about a language that is mostly spoken, and not written down? - Note I am not a language scientist, and I live too far away from there to give first-hand evidence. Eptalon (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Lusatian – New Marchian dialects is a very unusual word. Though taken by me from scholarly literature, it hardly is used outside numerous Wikipedias. de:Diskussion:Nordobersächsisch-Südmärkisch#Unbekannte Dialektgruppe is a discussion of the term. It was not started by me. Peter Wiesinger: Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. volume 2. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1970 (Studia Linguistica Germanica 2), p. 343/344 has the following division of South Markish: 1. From Mulde river to the former Sorbian area. 2. The formerly Sorbian area from Ruhland-Finsterwalde-Luckau-Buchholz to about Lusatian Neisse river 3. a formerly Low German area in the area of Oder and Warta rivers. p. 341 has Osterlandish around Leipzig and Anhaltian around Halle and Köthen among the varieties of Upper Saxon.

Apart from redirects, this term is used in neither the other English-language Wikipedia nor the German one. Additionally, my search of both the English and the German term on Commons yielded no results. Sarcelles (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Then it must be some sort of neologism only used on Wikipedia. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sarcelles: If we delete it, or replace it with a redirect, where should that redirect go? - As I understand, it is/was one of the dialects spoken "around Berlin". According to DEWP, all of them have been replaces by a "more standard" variety from Berlin. Don't askl me, I am not a linguist. If I look up "lausitz", big cities there are Kottbus (100k), Görlitz (57k, 87k if you also count the Polish part (Zgorelec), Bautzen (38k). Eptalon (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

South Markish is another word. Sarcelles (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

would it be better to use South markish/Südmärkisch then? I am not a linguist, and in the 50+ years since that publication, naming can change too. Is there a recent (since 2000 or so) publication that uses that classification? Eptalon (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I'd recommend importing from enwiki and simplifying fr33kman 18:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Importing. Well, please take (another?) look at the complex English-wiki article. (Hint: "first deputy minister of ...", "second deputy minister of ...")--Additional recommendation: do not import any names, without checking the individual en-wiki articles, to ensure that the person is not listed there, as being previous minister.--Better yet: close this discussion here, and move it to relevant page. 2001:2020:331:F8AD:3CC2:D9A5:E884:1D00 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Done/ Done. (See simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabinet_of_Afghanistan&oldid=9079414 ).--Regarding the En-wiki article: it seems that not all the incumbents, are correct.--Regarding the Simple-wiki article: no Hoax, however, our update is up to two months belated/'outdated'.--Can administrator (now), please close this discussion (and link to appropriate talk page)? Thank you in advance. 2001:2020:331:F8AD:3CC2:D9A5:E884:1D00 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:TALK#CREATE

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

ஃ, nope, because once talk pages are created, there is no need for them to be deleted. Deleting them could discourage users from recreating them and starting discussions in the future. I occasionally delete talk pages created by banned users, and of course ones that do not have a corresponding main page, but that is all. --Ferien (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks ஃ (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a QD criteria for talk pages not having a corresponding main page, as the other case of talk page deletion is covered by G5. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this is qd G8 ஃ (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ferien Auntof6 deleted talk pages because of talk create. is this not okay? if it is okay I think this should be qd criteria ஃ (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't do it myself, but of course, it's up to other admins to decide. I'll ping Auntof6 here if she wants to comment. It is worth noting that if it's the IP I'm thinking of, this is likely a case where talk pages were created for redirects that would probably never get comments, so it doesn't matter too much either way. --Ferien (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

OK no problem ஃ (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

New Template

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

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

The question is very vague in that "how" to make a template depends heavily on what you want the template to do. Is it for navigation? does it need to just state something> does it react to parameters? does it do math? there are many many things a template can be used for. To make one, all of these things need to be looked at. The only constant is that they are put into the template namespace, but that is jumping the gun.

As to who can make one - There are no limits there. At first, the template should be worked out in the persons userspace to be certain it works as expected before being put into the template name space. It would also be a good idea to get outside opinions on the template before releasing it to ensure it is a good idea and there is a use for it.

depending on the technological needs for the template, the creator may want to limit what they personally are qualified to work with. For example, I have some experience with many parts of template creation but others (LUA) are beyond me so I do not work on templates that need those aspects. Pure Evil (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks for the info btw it's just to state something... like the following:

{{sports-bio-stub}}

{{Template:User citizen India}} Faraz Sualeh (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Faraz Sualeh: As far as bio stub templates, or any stub templates. be aware that new stub templates need to be approved before being created. We don't keep as many kinds of stub categories here as English Wikipedia does. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh i see and what about Template:User citizen ..... (Country name) there are many templates of various countries that are not available like I need a template of Yemen🇾🇪 but it's not available so I wanna make so how can I...? Faraz Sualeh (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Faraz Sualeh: You can use an existing template as a pattern. If the template you want exists on English Wikipedia, you can copy it from there or ask the admins to import it for you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks✨ Faraz Sualeh (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Linking dates

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

As I remember it, it was for years and dates (I've slept since then mind you) fr33kman 22:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, those have been exceptions. Our guideline says this

"Wikilinks: It is not necessary to add wikilinks to all dates, like this: "[[25 March]] [[2004]]" or "[[February 10]]"). Only add a wikilink if you think the reader will find useful information at the date-related article you have linked to."

Enwiki's guideline at en:WP:DATELINK gives more detailed information. Part of it says:

"However, in intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s), links to specific month-and-day, month-and year, or year articles are not discouraged."

I think the day articles are intrinsically chronological.

Hope that helps. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well said! That's how I remember it as well. fr33kman 23:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So there is no actual opinions. Neither actually says anything. Our MoS says to link if you think is is a good idea so anyone can link any date anywhere if they think it could be useful. And En's words of wisdom are that they are not saying to not do it. They are not saying is should be done, only that they are not saying they are against it.. that useful. Neither says it is an exception to the way things are done, only that it is not disallowed to be an exception.

I could have sworn we formed the consensus to not link dates but the MoS states that is not the case - it is entirely a matter of personal choice under all circumstances. Pure Evil (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess since it's just hypertext in the end we might as well link what you want. Just so long as there are not more links than less links in the final version. I guess it's link if the result is a blue link, don't link if the result is a red-link. Or ... once again, the guideline is "do what you want" Surprise, surprise lol. fr33kman 01:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I just tend to favor picking a stance and sticking to it yet these guidelines do not pick a side. Even as guidelines are only suggestions on how to do something which probably should be followed, I think they should actually suggest something.. as such Pure Evil (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

What I suggest is to adjust for the following itea:

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

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

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

Soft redirect to Wiktionary

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

No, a redirect to Wiktionary would not be appropriate. If we have other articles that use the word a disambiguation page could be made. Otherwise keep it as it is. We're an encyclopedia not a dictionary. :) fr33kman 19:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What are the chances that if somebody searches "snitch", they're looking for something in Harry Potter? I think it's pretty low. But there are no articles here to disambiguate. So the redirect is harmful. Kk.urban (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If I create a disambiguation page, somebody will probably delete it. Kk.urban (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think that the redirect is harmful then bring it to RfD but a link to another project is definitely inappropriate. fr33kman 19:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Something tells me soft redirects to wiktionary have been done before. I may be thinking about enwiki. Can't find it at the moment, but I thought it may be worth putting that out there. --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm positive they have but I think it's wrong to do so. fr33kman 20:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that soft redirects to Wiktionary aren't a good idea because:

• They hide red links that can help us see what articles we need.
• Many English words have more than one meaning and people in our target audience could have difficulty figuring out which definition in the Wiktionary entry applies.
• It makes readers have to go to another site to understand the article.

Better options, IMO:

• Link to an appropriate article here, if there already is one.
• Create an article here.
• Use different, simple words in place of the linked term.
• Leave the term redlinked.

Just my thoughts. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Officially there are three though there are likely many more that do not do so properly and so are not tracked. Category:Redirects to Wiktionary tracks those linked by the template but that seems to only be used 3 times so far. side note: there is also a cat (with matching template) for terms that need to be moved to wiktionary. Pure Evil (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Bot job

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

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

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

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

I've done the 'A's. Need help or a bot. fr33kman 01:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Windows Home Server

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

Modified version of Twinkle.

• user:기나ㅏㄴ/test.js
• Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Patch for contributions page revert bug

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

mw.loader.using(['mediawiki.util', 'jquery.ui']).then(function() {
	importStylesheet('MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.css');
	return mw.loader.getScript('https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-morebits.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
}, function(err) {
	console.log(err);
}).then(function() {
	return mw.loader.getScript('https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:기나ㅏㄴ/test.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
}, function(err) {
	console.log(err);
});

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

Blocking proxies

Why do people block proxies. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read m:No open proxies. MathXplore (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I cannot use meta because of parental controls. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Just explain it to me in worde, why are proxies always blocked. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

m:No_open_proxies#Rationale says "Because MediaWiki (the wiki software) depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, open proxies allow users to completely circumvent administrators. The use of scripts or unapproved bots allow malicious users to rapidly rotate IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by helpless administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing heavy disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns." (oldid) Does this answer your question? MathXplore (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes.

So vandals circumvent blocks using open proxies.

But what is an "open" proxy. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case "open" means "can be used by anyone". MathXplore (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that we have a document like Wikipedia:Open proxies. MathXplore (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

All traffic will switch on 20 September. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 September 2023.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh no! Read-only!? Why??? 88.110.38.249 (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The message explains why. the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. [...] Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. --Ferien (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but that does not stop it being scary. 88.110.38.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How is it scary, may I ask? --Ferien (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I like editing. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Realisation

I looked at my talk page's history, and I saw an edit war reverting falsely reported claims that I was a blocked proxy. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 3 vandal posts with quick reverts on 2 separate days "an edit war".. Pure Evil (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearing white space

Does anyone know how to get rid of the huge white space left of the infobox on Idaho County, Idaho? Kk.urban (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kk.urban: Well, the things there are lists, not text, so I guess you'd have to change the formatting to put more items on a line. That might not be good for mobile users, though. I wouldn't worry about it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It has been resolved through the edits by Pure Evil. Kk.urban (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look any different to me, but OK. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Before the edits, the lists were showing up below the infobox rather than to its left. Kk.urban (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

hint: try to avoid the col templates. They simulate the table markup but are much less forgiving. Tables still have issues but far less problems to deal with. Pure Evil (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

hello! i'm new to the simple english wikipedia, mind showing me around?

just giving me a quick few things I could edit, I already made 2 minor changes KeroppiKid (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @KeroppiKid, and welcome! Before jumping in too deeply, make sure you understand how to write in simple language for this Wikipedia. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages can help with that, as can some of the pages listed in the "Related pages" section there.

If you're interested in ways that this Wikipedia is different from English Wikipedia, you can look at this list I maintain of things that are different here. The list itself is not policy or guideline, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask on my talk page.

Again, welcome, and thanks for wanting to help here! -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Fire engine

There are several recent edits to fire engine that made the page harder to read, but I'm not sure whether or not to revert them. They also added more information. Kk.urban (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear god.. that was a fun cleanup.. Reverting would not have been a bad idea but I decided to give it a go and c/e it instead. The OP's love of the caps key was a bit much and their love of repeating things was a bit more, but I think I got it cleaned up to a much more presentable level. Pure Evil (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kk.urban:, Apart for doing what @Pure Evil: did, it would be best to either revert to a less complex revision of use WP:SI to simplify. fr33kman 23:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

But wheres the fun in that. Plus the practice is good for anyone. Pure Evil (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Formatting

In Wikipedia:Deletion review the current formatting is that new requests are added to the bottom while closed ones stay at the top, while Wikipedia:Requests for Deletion uses the opposite. Shouldn't it be the same across both pages?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters. The archiving is a little different, because the entries on deletion review are not transcluded pages and they get archived to archive pages. We don't really even need a recently closed section because the closed ones can be moved directly to the archives (instead of being moved to the recently closed section and then having to be moved again). -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair point.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Move "Älta"

Can anyone please move Älta, to Älta, Sweden (or to Älta, Stockholm.--Nothing links to "Älta". (The title, is making 'problems' for the article that I am translating, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta.) 2001:2020:333:9D9C:15DD:4D77:B686:E42 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:333:9D9C:15DD:4D77:B686:E42 (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
More information: "Alta" will thereafter become a disambig page, with dozens of articles. 2001:2020:333:9D9C:15DD:4D77:B686:E42 (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, it seems. 2001:2020:333:9D9C:DCA4:6A63:6836:6470 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you guys take down vandalism so quick?

I see active vandalism on a page, and before I can do anything about it, an admin immedietly reverts it. Does it send you a notification if vandalism or edit warring on a page is detected? 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the kind, but usually it doesn't. The ormal case is that an admin sees it, recognizes it, and takes it down... Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

the first thing I do is block (if appropriate) then fix damage. I've also got a recent changes feed open on another screen so i don't have to leave other things I'm doing. fr33kman 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

can you send the link to that screen? 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges Keep a window open with that active and click on the live edits button. i have two physical screens on my pc, one with just that and Discord open. you can also use SWViewer but if you're going to use that remember to whitelist enwiki. SWViewer shows all edits on all small wikis so best leave it for now fr33kman 17:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

it's also a bit like tag-teaming without the tagging fr33kman 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

also if ya know any checkusers on this site can you ask if they can check this "zepez" person? i have a feeling it was the IP person from the other day who vandalized your talk page 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

we know who it is, no need to CU fr33kman 18:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Note alos, that per polcy Checkusers cannot link ip-addresses and usernames (to the general public). In many cases, users are known by their behavior... Eptalon (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

well surely you can link zepez and this ip by the fact they both posted dick pics on the same page right 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

and that it was literally signed zepez 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If a vandal links his name to an IP that's up to them but it's against our rules for us to do it. fr33kman 18:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

makes sense 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Any new accounts made by this vandal need to be blocked

Block this IP address immedietly: 195.96.144.16

He targets the Simple English Wikipedia, but his trend is putting pictures of his penis on articles.

He did this on:

@Fr33kman's user page

My user page AND my talk page

The Pol Pot article

This is a petition to globally block this IP address. He also does sockpuppeting quite a bit, and I suspect him of using a VPN.

He also submitted a global block against me. (I posted this at the Teahouse and they said to post it here.) 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

please post requests like this on wp:an. Simple Talk is for discussing the encyclopaedia fr33kman 18:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to add - Not an admin but blocking (and globally banning) would be a waste of time as by now they're probably on another VPN and that this will be a repeated cycle until they get bored. Not ideal but might be best to protect your user/talk pages and just keep reverting the IPs. Of course we could block to avoid further use but I doubt they'd ever be back on the same IP. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

thing is if it was protected i would be unable to edit it

im not autoconfirmed 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

AINT NO F^$#ing WAY

DID HE JUST DICK PIC THE ENTIRE SITE??? 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Or everyone who was looking at Simple Talk, BUT STILL 𝕂𝕖𝕣𝕠𝕡𝕡𝕚𝕂𝕚𝕕 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not helpful to keep posting messages about this. Please see WP:DENY. Kk.urban (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't swear, it could be seen as vandalism fr33kman 11:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Block

Can you block 2401:4900:701C:1CA4:A50E:4F32:846B:1397 user, they are spamming in one page only. Bakhos2010 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

They’re globally blocked now. Tropicalkitty (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh good Bakhos2010 (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010: For future reference, this is not the place to ask for blocks. After leaving appropriate warning messages on the IP's talk page (which was not done in this case), you can report at WP:VIP. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Alright my bad Bakhos2010 (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK update frequency...

Hello, at the time of this writing, there are 46 hooks in the holding area. Given that per "release" we get 6 hooks, this means that we curretly have hooks for 8 updates. What would you think of a weekly update of DYK hooks? Eptalon (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's 5 hooks per release, so with 7 queues and 61 hooks currently in the holding area, that's already enough for 19 updates. That's until mid-July at twice per month, or mid-February at once per week, and the number seems to keep growing. Are these all being verified to have an 8th-grade reading level? Kk.urban (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I know mine are checked and those I approve are. fr33kman 04:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess we have a lot; I've got a prepared list of almost 100. I'll cut my noms to a max of 2 at a time from now on. fr33kman 04:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a problem! As the articles are all simple enough, I think Eptalon's suggestion is good. Kk.urban (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support We need to update faster. We have plenty of hooks to move to weekly. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support if we run out in the later part of next year we can move back to less frequent. fr33kman 02:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support We do have quite a few DYK noms so it makes sense, and if we run out we can go back to the less frequent updates.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Latin names vs common names

Some of the time species' articles are titled under their scientific names redirected to common names and some of time it's the other way around. Should we standardize? The WP:MOS is silent on the matter. fr33kman 11:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This is Simple English. I expect there are more searches For the common name. I also know that finding the correct name can be difficult, so the people search for the binominal Name. Eptalon (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not unusual for the same species to have more than one common name Rathfelder (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

True in that case it makes sense to have the scientific name as the article name with common names redirecting into that. I'm looking to change the MOS here. fr33kman 23:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would do it the other way around, many people know dandelions. They will loook for them under that name. If I go looking for Taraxacum, I find that it's a whole genus (likely of many related plants "looking similar"). Almost know one will go search for T. officinale (one of the two most common species). So likely the common name is the better choice. And ofc we need redirects from less common common names to more common ones... Eptalon (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a rule about this. I've been writing Froggie of the Day for years now, and I think we should accept that some organisms will have the common name and some will have the Latin name, and trying to push them all in the same basket will make trouble:

1. Many species have more than one common name: Some frogs have literally ten of them. The wider the animal's range, the more names it has. Litoria bicolor is northern dwarf tree frog, dwarf tree frog, lined grass frog, green reed frog, Pandan frog, bicolored grass frog and northern sedge frog, and it only lives in one country, and that's only the names it has in English. The gray tree frog has eleven common names, and it lives in the U.S. and Canada.
2. Many common names have more than one species: "Red-eyed tree frog" is Ranoidea chloris, Agalychnis callidryas, and Agalychnis taylori
3. Many species have no common names at all, only Latin names.
4. Scientists cannot make up their friggin' minds and keep changing the Latin names: The owl genus Megascops used to be part of Scops, and Litoria used to contain about a dozen other frog genera before they split it up in I want to say 2015. Sometimes I use the frog's common name because the Latin one has changed four times in the past ten years. Again, the gray tree frog has had eleven Latin names since 1801.

This is one of those times when "just do what feels good" might really be the best way. If Simple's MoS has a rule about this, I think we should just take it out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I will add that at en.wiki, the reason the manual of style got added to the AE list (topics officially declared contentious and subject to special administrative sanctions) was because of article names and capitalization. I don't know if it was specifically the names of articles about organisms because I wasn't in that fight, but there were fights about that, and they did get intense. This might be one of those times when a smaller project just not having a rule about something might prevent trouble. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that a pragmatic approach may be best. We have to exercise judgement and accept that there is no rightanswer. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

agreed fr33kman 19:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Haoreima (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have to add that the current scientific name has priority in all cases. It is usually quite stable. and the examples of change are nowadays due to DNA analysis (therefore quite rare). As to popular names, the critique is that they vary between countries and are not stable, and sometimes not justified (in terms of population science). All that besides, we are bound to align with the official name, albeit in Latin. All teaching of professional biology is done that way. Personally, I don't object to the use of common names, I just point out what the majority view is. It follows that in most cases page about animals will prominently use their official Latin names. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC).

  I'm not sure I'm with you on Latin renames being rare. Pseudophilautus stellatus and the Northern New Guinea tree frog both have had more four or more Latin names in this century alone, two of them in the same year. Of course, the bodies of the articles all have both the Latin name and any English names irrespective of the title. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this is a case where redirects are going to be our friends. As I see it as long as our readers get to the correct article using either the Latin names or any of the common names, I don't think it'll matter what we call them. Redirects are cheap so we can have as many as are needed to get the reader to the right place ultimately. fr33kman 23:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Preach it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Pages with short description

Category:Pages with short description is up at 230+. I cleared a lot of fish articles that were copy pastes with the template (and many with cat issues but not all) but if someone with a bot want to unleash the dogs of war on it, it would be helpful. Pure Evil (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

23rd to 30th centuries and 4th to 10th millennia

The 23rd to 30th centuries should be redirected to the article on the 3rd millennium, while the 4th to 10th millennia should be redirected to the article on the Timeline of the far future. Each of those redirects should then be semi-protected to prevent any further disruption by IPs. I have recreated the millennia redirects, but each of them has apparently been replaced with an article that then got deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the redirects are needed unless there are meaningful incoming links to them. By "meaningful", I mean links that actually say something about the century, not just part of a navigational template or table or something like that. For example, the links in Template:Centuries are just part of a set, not meaningful. As for actual non-redirected articles, I don't think those are needed unless they have something other than the standard boilerplate text that's on all similar articles. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Move (reason: disambiguation-page coming up)

Ås, to Ås, Krokom Municipality.--Please make that move. Thanks, 2001:2020:31D:A604:F4BB:B3D4:A163:DE29 (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Kk.urban (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Vik, to Vik, Sweden. Please make that move.--(Only one link, that i will have to fix, afterwards.)--Thanks, 2001:2020:31D:A604:992E:8B9:C210:51B (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Kk.urban (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Grän, to Grän, Austria. Please make that move. Thanks. 2001:2020:331:CEED:A530:89F6:E2D0:1616 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC) A 'relevant' disambig-page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran) can then be made/translated, into the spot that is being hogged by "Grän". 2001:2020:331:CEED:F116:2BB:D418:E966 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You can still create a disambiguation page at Gran. The other titles don't seem to have an umlaut over the a. Kk.urban (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. (I did use search box for "Gran", and intended to start an article. However, I was 'dumped' onto the "Grän" page.--I think the take-home idea, is that in some special cases, one needs to only - click on a link to start the article.--If this makes sense, then fine.) 2001:2020:347:8DDA:9445:5782:D028:65BB (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. 2001:2020:347:8DDA:E5F6:4099:6556:7264 (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.

On behalf of the Committee Support team,

~ Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikitext Upload issue

Hello, I am a Wikipedia editor, I am  currently having an issue with a particular edit I am working on. Whenever I am done to publish my edits, there is always a pop out message that reads “unable to determine upload result”.

What is the cause and how I can rectify this issue?

I eagerly await your response. Parislondoner (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you in the correct spot? I ask because you have never posted to this wiki before. This question is your only post here. Pure Evil (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this editor tried to make their first edit and it is giving them this message? – Angerxiety^! 16:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Try asking on the mediawiki site. fr33kman 16:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

phab:2023100910010991 opened on this as well, asked for more information there. Xaosflux (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Email help team

Who is part of the email help team (info-simple@wikipedia.org)? Is it all the administrators? I just sent an email there. Kk.urban (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's supposed to be all the admins, but I doubt it is up-to-date. I didn't get an email. fr33kman 20:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ask Eptalon or Djsasso, there the ones who often add people on lists. fr33kman 20:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Is there a way to email all the admins? I looked at Wikipedia:Contact us (the link on the sidebar) and this is the only one I found. I know you can email oversighters. Kk.urban (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kk.urban: For admin business, you can email simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org. That goes to the admins' email list, not to each admin individually. Please use it only for admin-specific business, not general help requests. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Thanks, I will send the email to that list. @Fehufanga This is specifically for simplewiki administrators and other users would not be able to help. If info-simple@wikipedia.org is not often used, would it be better to change Wikipedia:Contact us to provide the administrator email list? Kk.urban (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to send it to the admins list (which I'm not included in for whatever reason). fr33kman 04:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: Maybe people thought you knew how to get yourself on it? I don't remember how, so I can't help you, but I'm sure someone will. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kk.urban I am not aware of anyone who operates that address. That's a en:WP:VRT email, so you should ask a VRT admin, not one of us. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Helllo all, to my knowledge, the local list that reaches all admins is the simple-admins-l. There is one other list for oversight requests (reaching the oversighters). These two are all the local lists I am aware of (and co-manage); there may be other wikipedia-wide lists though. Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

So are we all on that list? Or do we need to give you our email addresses? :) fr33kman 16:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We currently have 18 admins, and there are 18 email addresses on the list. If you send me an email (with your email address) I can cross-check if you are on the list. As always: Email-addresses are non-public info, so shouldn't be shared on-wiki. Eptalon (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

done fr33kman 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll add some information here, that I think addresses the comments I've seen in this discussion:

• simple-admins-llists.wikimedia.org is operated using the Postorius system and can be used to contact all administrators. I know the administration behind it is mostly done by Operator873 and Eptalon. While it is used as the first point of off-wiki contact for all admins and very occasionally for private discussion between admins, it is not used that extensively. I have not gotten mail from it in a while and that's probably because I've now realised all emails on that list since 27 September have been going to junk for me (including Kk.urban's email...). Fr33kman, perhaps this is what has happened for you, if you are not sure your email is added?
• info-simplewikipedia.org, on the other hand, is operated using VTRS, an entirely different system and administration of it is managed by VRTS admins rather than local administrators on this Wikipedia. It should be used for more general help requests but I am not on it and I do not know of anyone else who is actively working on it. I have just applied to help out on that list, as has Fehufanga.

--Ferien (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm now on the admins list. I'm willing to be on the general help list, how do I apply? fr33kman 16:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: see m:Volunteer Response Team/Recruiting --Ferien (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Narges Mohammadi complex language

Narges Mohammadi is the winner of the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize. I think some parts of the article are still too complex for simplewiki, especially the #Prison section, but I'm not sure how to fix it. It would be great if a couple experienced editors could try to simplify it before it goes on DYK. Thanks! Kk.urban (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

On a readability level, that prison section is well into college level (12 - 16) . So 3-7 grade beyond the accepted upper level. The section before that is a bit better at HS levels but still too complex. The entire thing would need an overhaul to even get close to not being too complex. Before looking at DYK, the article needs to be even marginally acceptable. Priority should be on a decent article before a random hook and that article is far from decent. Pure Evil (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've had a go. But a lot of the complex bits are quotations. Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

the two things to do there are paraphrasing/indirect speech and replacing a complex word/phrase with a simpler in brackets Eptalon (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to what needs simplifying? I've re-gone over it and simplified hat I can see and removed the {{complex}} tag, but will replace it until you can tell me what needs fixing or in case you fix it yourself. Thanks man. fr33kman 17:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikify the opening sentence. and the 3rd.. and what do the two parts of the third sentence even have to do with each other? 'She complex worded a complex word (earned/got a degree in ...) and is an engineer'... how are those connected as a single thought?

"She was briefly released on a US$50,000 bail but arrested again several days later and held at Evin Prison." three sentences, not one. and did an Iranian court actually set her bail in USD?

" Mohammadi's health got worse while she was in prison, and she got a disease similar to epilepsy: sometimes, she loses muscle control." 1. what disease. 2. three more sentences pretending to be one.

And that is just a start at 4 of the problems. there are many more. Pure Evil (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Quotes are a pain as it is normally the option of not simple or not what they actually said. Unless ideal, I tend to go with option B and rephrase what was said without it being a quote and possible letting the reference tagged to the paraphrase provide the word for word quote. Some quotes are simple and can be included directly, some can be linked and or [addended] with some explanation. Others are just too far gone and need to be completely rewritten to preserve the meaning while getting the flow down to the correct level of structure and vocabulary. Just never rewrite and claim its a quote. Its no longer what was said. Pure Evil (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.

Best,

Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK Queues

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

Why do you need another queue? Instead of that you could update it more often when there are more hooks, and at the current speed when there are less hooks, without needing to post here every time the speed changes. So either 2,3, or 4 times a month depending on available backlog. As long as 4-5 queues remain full at all times, it shouldn't be a problem. Kk.urban (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea! So, to clarify, the admins would update it faster when the backlog is bigger? That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! Kk.urban (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It's increasing because I'm back ... yeah! fr33kman 16:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not even sure we need a seventh queue - it was originally created for a daily DYK system but we would likely never have enough editors for that idea. Instead, the frequency of DYK can be increased, as Kk.urban says, although it's important to increase the frequency gradually so we don't burn through all our hooks. Having too many hooks in the holding area is a good "problem" to have IMO, as it gives us plenty of hooks to cover a variety of topics in the specific queues. --Ferien (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Haoreima (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree for now. It is better to have many hooks in holding then another queue. Bobherry Talk My Changes 01:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it time to start updating this weekly? Maybe every Friday, starting October 27? Kk.urban (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sportswomen

Do we have an agreed approach to categorising people by gender? Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you look at the guideline for categories? Pure Evil (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CATGENDER is a bit indecisive. I wondered whether it would be sensible to divide sportspeople where men and women play separately. Sportswomen as a category isnt very illuminating. But gender is clearly more of an issue in sport than in most other occuptions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

When wanting to do away I think with sportsmen), I failed; that was somewhere at the introduction of CATGENDER... Eptalon (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved party, what is wrong with having Sportsmen and Sportswomen? A person is only going to fit into one or the other after all. fr33kman 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasnt the issue I was thinking about. Do we go to female/male cricketers, runners, etc.? We have a few categories along those lines, but the only male one is tennis players. Do we assume footballers are male unless categorised as female? There arent many sports where men and women compete in the same events. Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This has always been a sticky issue. One side generally stays to. except for named award type categories (WNBA player of the year, Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama, etc) where the name dictates a sex limit, there should be no division. The second side- being a female totally makes anything different and should have its own category. But that only applies to women. no cat for say male nurses. A third and most common option is that if there is a female category, the "not sexed" category is for males (and whatever females people want to randomly put in there. some do get tbe special cat but others do not. No reasoning which applies when though.. its just a personal choice. Much like many of the Jewish and African American based cats... sometimes they apply and sometimes they do not.

Each time any of these issus comes up, it turns into a big debate / argument . where no one ever agrees and noting is ever decided. Eventially it all dies down and at times someone might try to sum it all up and we get something like what is at WP:Categories which neither side actually agreed with but most were just over fighting about it all. Pure Evil (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Santina Marella (Tony Carelli / Santino Marella) won a woman's battle royal to become Ms Wrestlemania and yet was a man pretending to be another man pretending to be that mans sister.. wrestling... Sanina = female. Santino = male. And of course there is the former Playgirl (Bruce) and Vanity Fair (Katelyn ) cover model.. Some have been both at the some time while other were each at different stages of their lives. Pure Evil (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of a troll page

Hello;

It seems like a troll known as Craqdi opened a page on your encyclopedia. I do not manage to ask for deletion, which is unacceptable. It is the page User:Les Filles Les Commandés Condamnés. You will see that the creator is blocked globally. Please do what is necessary. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrator note:Admin Vermonthas deleted it. Thanks for your help! fr33kman 02:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Readability tests

We are having a discussion about readability testing. Basically we need to find 2 or 3 tests that we can use and standardise on so we can reliably start whether or not a page is easy to read or complex. Can people kindly make some suggestions. Some of the tests used so far can be found at WP:SI. Thanks! fr33kman 18:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I do have a perhaps very simple question: Flesh-Kincaid was developed mid-1970s, perhaps early 1980s. That was 40-50 years ago. That means we are looking at 2 generations of students from linguistics, whgich had the chance to improve the method. Flesh-Kinkaid has the basic idea that shorter words (with less syllables) are better, and that shorter sentences (with fewer words) are better too. The problem is that if you use that you will end up using what is called 'phrasal verbs'. They may be great, because the put together a usually short verb, and a preposition. They are bad for two reasons: First, from the verb and the preposition, there is no way to guess the meaning. And secondly, slowly, over time, their meaning becomes different. About 60-70 years ago, the words gay and merry probably had similar meanings. Today, if you are talking about gay people who go to a bar, you almost always mean homosexuals. (Don' t ask me when that change occurred, I am not a native speaker. In the context of the request above, I raise two points:

• Are there newer methods (with a published way to calculate the score, freely available)?
• Wouldn't it be in the interest of Wikipedia to build such a calculator, and make it avalialbe? - You paste a Wikipedia URL, it strips the markup (etc) and calculates a number of scores?

Eptalon (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It would certainly be worthwhile for the WMF or some helpful person to create a readability test. However, who's going to do it. I'll try and see if I can do something about it. fr33kman 18:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of readability tests freely available. One site that let's one use the most common/best known ones for free is https://readabilityformulas.com/readability-scoring-system.php . Kdammers (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

how to use this site

a Jamal Stevenson (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle

Is it just me or are other people having problems with Twinkle? When I'm trying to welcome or warn the links don't show up. fr33kman 16:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It worked for me. Kk.urban (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

IT's working now,....strange fr33kman 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There may have been some problems with my fix. I'll check tomorrow. ginaan(T/C) 02:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Its working for me however it does seem bit sluggish. Bobherry Talk My Changes 02:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed twinkle header because of the bug on new vector skin. I will check it soon. ginaan(T/C) 03:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no problem T.T. Perhaps an update to a new version of TW, rather than a bug fix, would make it more convenient to use. But,,, I don't know if anyone can update this. I have no time to update;; --ginaan(T/C) 10:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Move (reason: disambiguation-page coming up)

Baba Yaga, to Baba Yaga (mythology).--Links to a half-dozen articles (and i can change that, 'after the fact').--Please make that move, thanks. 2001:2020:31D:9004:DD12:92BB:2D61:935B (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the most common English use for the name. There is no reason to move it. The disambig page would be fine at Baba Yaga (disambiguous). Pure Evil (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  I was just leaving approximately the same message. The dab page can be at Baba Yaga (disambiguation), and you can link to it at the top of the current article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I often make better (or even create) "Page-name this".
"Page-name this (disambiguation)", i usually give a hard pass.--Time might be best used, without further discussing 'this case'. Thanks for the (previous) replies, anyway. 2001:2020:31D:9004:1543:8387:3542:E485 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Rapid total deletion

I just created an article about a writer well-known in Norway, essentially translating the Norwegian Wikipedia article but not yet putting in references, noting that was needed. I did include the fact that she had won a (significant) Norwegian literary award. I went to the talk page on the article to leave a comment on readability. Less than five minutes after completing the article, it was deleted. First, I consider this too fast (the awarding of the lit. award seems to me enough to qualify at notable). Second, the fact that I created this now-deleted article is not even listed on "My changes" log, meaning I don't know how to get it back to add supporting material. Kdammers (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree; if this is about Grethe Fatima Syéd, restore it into mainspace with an {{Under construction}} template, or into userspace. It's not justified to delete an article about a potentially notable topic one minute after creation. Kk.urban (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It was quite easy to note that it was a clear QD:A4. Remember, admins don't need to research the article, just read it and see if an assertion of notability was made. In this case it was not made. fr33kman 17:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Most people would disagree that the Klassekampen Culture Prize is not an assertion of notability. Furthermore an article doesn't have be perfect when a user first creates it. Kk.urban (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I know an article doesn't have to be perfect when it's first created, but it is incumbent on the creator to explain why an article should exist. In this case, I have never heard of that prize and it's not the admin's responsibility to know about such an award. We get LOTS of articles created here that mention many awards and prizes. This article wasn't wikified in any way either. In any case, I'm happy to restore it. fr33kman 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It's also not the admins' responsibility to judge notability based on whether they've heard of a prize. Otherwise we'd have quite few articles about people from outside the English-speaking world. Kk.urban (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't "judge" notability at all. I decided that no assertion had been made. That's what A4 is about. Whether or not the article makes an assertion of notability. In this case I decided it didn't. For every action you do as an admin someone will disagree with it. I try my best. fr33kman 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW: I did Google the prize before I deleted the article. I found no mention of such a prize. fr33kman 17:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank You for commenting. I didn't know about the "under construction" template. Where can I find the deleted Grethe Fatima Syéd text? Kdammers (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kdammers My message wasn't for you, it was for administrators who read this. I don't think you will be able to see the deleted text unless an admin restores it. Kk.urban (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I have undeleted the article and placed an {{under construction}} tag on it. However, I do not see it as anything more than QD:A4 at this point. Please work on it soon. fr33kman 17:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesnt seem sensible to delete articles which are still under construction. Editors work in different ways. They should be given a bit of time before anyone decides to delete their work. Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We'll see how it pans out. Different admins do things differently also. i saw an article that was created unwikified and checked the prize and found nothing of note. fr33kman 22:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: At the time no template was placed on the article. I put it there because an editor claimed I was too harsh in QD'ing it. Given how the RfD is going I'd said I was too lenient in undeleting and putting the tag there. If I had known it had already been shot down at enwiki I would have left it deleted. fr33kman 23:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Kk.urban:, There is an RfD that you could at least have the decency to comment at since you forced it to happen. :| fr33kman 22:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Math

how many hours in one year 41.114.200.9 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

8760 for a normal year, 8784 for a leap year. Koshchki123 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

8760. RiggedMint 04:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

24*365=8760. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

8760 = calendar year, 8784 = calendar w/ leap year, 8,765 = solar year (1 solar rotation of the Earth is 365.242374 days) Pure Evil (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Vanderpump pages

Should we create an abuse-filter to prevent editors from creating pages with "Vanderpump" in the title? We tend to see a fair few. fr33kman 00:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Move "Rauma" (reason: disambiguation-page coming up)

Rauma, to Rauma (Finland).--Links to less than a dozen articles (and i can change that, 'after the fact').--Please make that move, thanks.--See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauma. 2001:2020:31B:8F3A:C973:54DE:1774:107 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Don't forget to do the links fr33kman 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Double redirect changing sub user pages

This is only a minor problem I believe.

When changing sub-user pages, there is a editing noticebox at the top. In one of these links, it is a double redirect.

An example, while changing a user subpage, it reads, "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this name. Before starting please see m:Sub pages " (which this page was moved to the help for subpages page on MediaWiki)

Could we just link the MediaWiki page to this? SIMPLEIST (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The red strikeout line in meta's recent list

Would it be possible to get the same red strikeout line in a blocked user or IPs name as they do on metawiki's RC list? It makes it so much easier to see someone has already taken care of the problem. Thanks! :) fr33kman 04:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: Can you point to an example of this? I don't think I've ever seen it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, go to meta:Special:RecentChanges right NOW and scroll down and you'll ee see some examples. You made need to scroll down 2200changes. Thx:) fr33kman 04:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

that 200 changes lol fr33kman 04:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: I guess the changes in question must have rolled off, because I don't see anything. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Change your runoff to 250 changes and you'll see some fr33kman 04:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: It's already at 500. Maybe there's a setting I don't have. That's OK, I was just curious. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  @Fr33kman It's not exactly the same but the userscript I use (en:MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js) works well for me. To use it, add

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // [[:en:MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js]]

to Special:MyPage/common.js. I use it globally, so I add it to my global.js file. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman the global.js file should be in your Meta userpage (meta:Special:MyPage/global.js) — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So you can addsomething like in as a gadget, but can it be added for all to see as on meta? fr33kman 04:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Fr33kman The javascript you add to meta:Special:MyPage/global.js is applied to all Wikimedia websites. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see it adds a blueline striketrough. Thanks cool. I like the redline bue this will do. Thanks a lot!!:) fr33kman 04:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I much prefer it to be 2-3px high and in red. I assume I can import the whole.js to my userspace and change the color there. Thanks! fr33kman fr33kman 05:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Level 1 or Level 2 warning for new month?

If there was a level 1 warning given last month, would the months after be level 1 or level 2 if there was no warning that month? I have done a mix of both and it never felt right to me using any of them. – Angerxiety^! 12:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I would think it would depend on several things like the severity of the vandalism and the history of the IP. The more severe the vandalism, the more likely to go with an upgrade to the warning. The person who writes "poop!" is not as likely to be an problem as the one that writes "ALL NI#$#@s MUST DIE!!!!!!" (That second one most likely goes right to the top of the list. 4+ and instablocked but you get the point) Also the more often they have been warned, the more likely to upgrade I am. If they have one warning from 5 months ago, there is little reason to think its a Magor issue and starting fresh is probably best. If they have 47 warnings from April to August but September was clean, they are still a likely issue, so the upgrade is probably warranted. Each case needs to be looked at individually to decide what is best for that situation. Pure Evil (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Level 1 is basically AGF, from level 2 and up is overt vandalism and worse. If it's vandalism I start at level 2 or 3 depending on the situation. If it's a kid doing an editing test then it's Level 1. You don't need to follow them from 1-4, it all depends. Pure Evil is essentially correct. fr33kman 22:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did my change get deleted

Why 207.157.127.91 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by an automatic anti-vandalism bot. It contained "There is a fake story about this place not being real." and probablygot triggered by the word "fake". If the automatic bot makes a mistake you can just add it again and it will not get triggered. fr33kman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok 207.157.127.91 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Twinkle

How come I can't find Twinkle in my settings page? CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 16:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@CocoaSugar

• Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets

You can enable TW on the link above:) -- ginaan(T/C) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@CocoaSugar I think you can't use Twinkle until you are Autoconfirmed here. Kk.urban (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I also want to know if there's Twinkle on the Meta-Wiki. CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is. There is local twinkle and global twinkle which makes it available everywhere. fr33kman 17:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

How do I find global Twinkle? CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 17:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Follow the instructions here fr33kman 17:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 16:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Funny little bug I think I found

I was trying to reply in the recent Good Article proposal for earth but pressing the '[ change source ]' button opened up the source editor for the template. I take it this is a bug?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@FusionSub @RiggedMint This was because {{Pgapropose}} was not substituted. I substituted it, which caused the template to turn into text, so now this problem is resolved. Kk.urban (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok thanks.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

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.

---

User:Simpul skitsofreeneea has been editing the article and slowly making it worse and worse. Links to enwiki are being added, which is inappropriate. Parts of the article are nonsensical and hard to read even if the English is simple. I'm wondering what we should do about the situation. Thoughts? fr33kman 22:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban, 6 months or one year, or 3 months.--That is my Simpul non-skitso view.--If no articles have been improved, then a long block or indef.--If no one else has chimed in, then consider taking sanctions to the limit.--Thanks, 2001:2020:31B:8F3A:C973:54DE:1774:107 (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear lord... I've seen them editing on rc and just hoped for the best. That seems to be a misplaced hope. In its current state, my only suggestion would be to find a willing experienced editor and have them copy over the English version and do a full simplification on it. Or at least a bit stubbing. It could be possible to do a long term revert depending on its prior state, but I do not know what that state was. AGF certainly applies. I do not think they were actively trying to get it this way, but this badly needs to be fixed. Pure Evil (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to look at different things:

• The User added quite a lot of text; Schizophrenia currently has a size of 171k. As a comparison, Slavery, which is nominated for good Article, is at just under 36k, 1/4 of that size. Other examples, Abortion has a size around 50k, Obsessive–compulsive disorder is at around 18k. The article needs to be rewritten; we likely need to create articles for larger sections, and replace these with a summary. Apart from simplification, this likely also needs accurracy-checking by an expert. Another option would be to replace the current article with the last known good version, and then start adding the sections added, simpilfying each. I edited the article in the past, and we need to be careful with language; as in some cases, people who had problems integrating into society were labeled that way (I think in Asis). In any case, it wull be a lot of work.
• The editor mentioned is a one-subject editor, there are few to no other edits outside this subject area.
• If we can integrate the editor, and make him/her help with the work, this would be great.
• For readability purposes, I'd see a target size of 40-50k; this means 2/3 to 3/4 of the current article needs to go (If impoprtant enugh. annex articles, oherwise, delete).

As to the editor, I'd see:

1. A clear message, written in simple English, that the behavior needs to change.
2. If no change in behavior is apparent, a topic-ban or a ban (time to be determined, likley 3-6 months). As this is a single-subject editor, it doesn't make much difference which of the two we choose.

As to the article: I will not do major touches to the article before there's a verdict to this discussion. Eptalon (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I can't possibly disagree with other editors and impose my will on the article because I don't have any power over the article than any other editor, but since the conversation began with "slowly making it worse and worse" "nonsensical" "hard to read even if the English is simple" - this is one editors opinion and so other editors have continued from that initial suggestion, doesn't prove that the claims are true to me, although I'm not disagreeing with the responding editors comments obviously, that they seem to agree with the direction of the 1st criticisms. The information I added isn't false. I can't really defend the article from vague criticisms based on a subjective opinion without evidence from the editor. All I think is I have no rights over the article than any other person, but deleting all of the additions I made wouldn't really represent the fact that the facts are true, and , or, necessary (that they are the subjects of the article) but the form of the additions aren't good to read for the complaining editor(s). I think Eptalon is a good idea, and I would like and welcome someone doing "major touches to the article" but simply refusing to allow me access to the article on the basis of the situation currently is an error as I am only one person, I don't know the opinion of others as to the reading quality unless someone expresses an opinion - lone working is prone to errors (of one writer with everyone else the reader is not an easy reality to know about compared to more than one which is a group effort, consensus, etc and is more probable to be accepted by people). I just continued because I thought there was more to add. Other people collaborating obviously make a better solution to a problem, but negating some-ones work - without discussion isn't really a development of forward thinking for article improvement. If someone wants to completely remove everything I have done to the pre my contributions version that is of course fine, but someone would then perhaps discuss the contents of the deleted material for re-integration (i.e. as is indicated "consensus") rather than completely trash everything I have done, if that is the suggestion. To revert the whole of my contribution and then discuss the edits with someone for integration would be one choice or for this discussion to be an agreement that I should stop working on the article until a second and, or, third editor has made some changes. Would probably be agreeable for the criticising editors, and I don't have any problem with this being the reality. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we are not talking about the information being true or false; we are talking about the information not being easy to read. I do not have a problem with the size of the article; I just pointed out that we likely need to do something to make the article easier to read. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages and Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia are two guidelines that help with simplification. My comments regarding size are not specific to this Wikipedia; I also left a comment on the Enwp Taliban article's talk page, end of 2022 (here); that article currently has a size of over 300k; at the time I split out a section of around 80k, and only left a summary). And as you point out, Wikipedia is free to edit, anyone can change any article, no one claims ownership of a given article. For my part, I have no subject knowledge; I can help with simplifying phrases, but I have no idea if they are correct or accurate. Eptalon (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a PhD in a relevant subject, and if no other editor here has a PhD it is going to be difficult for anyone to resolve the article satisfactorily or agreeably, but obviously I should just exercise restraint and allow other editors to impose their will as I've imposed mine. If Fr33kman wants to simply make the changes he sees from his view then I won't stop him, he should just proceed to change the article as he considers to be necessary. This is a third option. We could agree he could change for perhaps within a one or two week maximum, then after that time return to discussion of the contents as to the validity of Fr33kman's choices. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Foods is definitely a section that should stay. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Again you miss the point. The point is not the specific content, but the degree of difficulty of the prose. That IS a subject we are qualified to comment on. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this criticism....but for me to proceed to therefore make a second version of the prose wouldn't necessarily bring about the desired version. I read the article and I see my words and understand, others read the words and complain. That others complained at all doesn't indicate a position of confidence in my writing currently. I would have to stop and re-assess the work through review. I mean, this is a peer-review which is a good and valued situation, which we could all benefit from, not discounting anyones opinion. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I could start to immediately try and make critical deletions of my work if that is the requested situation, but that would be my changes, so who should proceed if I am the cause of the problem? You would prefer me to critically review the prose? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

the prose is unorthodox... Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

As an example, I rewrote the intro for simplicity. It mostly says the same thing, almost all ideas have been kept, but the senteces are shorter and easier to understand. Look at this diff to see what was changed. Eptalon (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• The major (?) set of problems, seems to have started with the following diff (and its cherry-picked source), simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&diff=9128904&oldid=9119862.--Solution, revert to the version 'at the start of the diff'. (I tried to be bold, but a filter stopped my edit from going thru.) 2001:2020:31D:B98F:296B:B9E:7506:8672 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Could it be broken into some shorter articles? As it stands it is intimidatingly long for me, and I am a qualified English teacher. People who are not confident readers find short articles much easier. Rathfelder (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with breaking it down into smaller chunks. As Rathfelder has said, it is hard to read because of the sheer amount of information. By the time you get to 1/4 of the way through the article you have forgotten what the first part says. I think smaller articles are great idea. fr33kman 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes definitely. History could be a separate article Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Eptalon: Yes the rewrite seems fine except for "mental illness" which isn't totally possible because "is a mental and behavioural disorder" Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"primary psychotic disorders" "Mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders", "Symptoms must have persisted for at least one month... The symptoms are not a manifestation of another health condition" all from this source Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Also think about the audience: The audience of this article is the general population; they are not doctors, they aren't students, they are simple people. How would you explain this to a 10-12 year old? - If you have a (say 15 year old) who you found suffers from Schizophrenia, how do you tell him/her in a way that he/she understands, how do you tell the parents?

Take the treatrments section:

• In many cases, drugs will be used for treament. There are two classes, one is antipsychotics, the other is other drugs.
• Drugs will be combined with different forms of therapy, to help people cope. (And perhaps list the 2-3 most common therapies).
• Drugs take 7-14 days (1-2 weeks) to take a visible effect. As they have side-effects, they need to be chosen carefully.
• Very often, the people are unwilling or unable to take the drugs, so many drugs also exist as solutions that can be injected.
• It has been shown that (not) eating certain things can have an effect.

(And with that, we reduced the whole treament section to a few sentences, and kept the "foods" part); but in general, we should use the article talk page to discuss such changes, that's what it is meant for. Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Firstly, I'd like to thank Simpul skitsofreeneea for responding to this issue. The concerns I have are basically two-fold. 1) The sheer amount of edits makes it hard to oversight it by others to make sure that the edits to the article are factual. I'm a doctor and I am having a hard time making sure that the article is in a factual state, which is not saying that anything written is wrong, it's just hard to make sure it is due to the sheer amount of new data in the article. 2) The language used seems to be more complex than we would normally allow. It is hard for me to read and whilst I'm not an expert in mental illnesses I do have the basic understanding that a general doctor has. I'm not a psychiatrist but I have treated quite a few people with schizophrenia and I'm not sure I understand all that has been written. I'd also like for there to be more than one editor writing the article. A NPOV is hard to maintain when there is just one editor. I hope this explains my point of view. Thanks to everyone for responding and helping. fr33kman 18:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  As for the comment that a topic ban should be imposed, absolutely not. This is not a matter for the admin toolset. It is a problem where no admin actions are needed. fr33kman 18:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have done some copy editing of the article and I believe there are two natural fork points in which two new articles could be made. The first is the In-hospital treatment and the second is community based treatment. Thoughts? BTW: The article is look MUCH better, thanks for all the hard work. fr33kman 05:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Two natural points to split the article into two more is the in-patient treatment (secondary care) and the out-patient treatment (community) fr33kman 06:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Coming back to the topic above, I was one of the editors participatring in the rewriting effort. Whilee the effort isn't done, we were able to greatly improve the article. Given this was a fruitful cooperation, I currently don't see a need for an admin action either. Eptalon (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for helping make a great article! fr33kman 19:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A host of editors took turns at trying to clean up this article. There had been strong headway in simplifying and restructuring it. And then it all fell apart. The Intro was taken down to 7-10th grade readability. Refs got under control. The intro was trimmed and streamline while still covering the main points. Things were looking good. Then people turned their heads while the changes that caused the problems in the first place kept happening. The intro is about 1/3 of the size it was and covers less than that amount of information. The readability is so bad, its triggering college graduate on several tests. Its low test is at college entry level. And this is just the intro. The current level of complexity is completely unacceptable for this wiki. Pure Evil (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2023 (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.