Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 154

< Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Marker, to Marker (for writing) or Marker (pen).--Links to 3 articles (and i can change that, 'after the fact').--Please make that move, thanks.--See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker. 2001:2020:31B:8F3A:C973:54DE:1774:107 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about Marker pen to match English Wikipedia? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Marker (for writing)", is sort of where i am at.--To me, a "Pen" is first and foremost a ballpoint pen.--"Marker (pen)", no longer has my support.--My (poor) number two choice, i guess will be "Marker pen".--And yeah, you are so right in pointing out that option; En-wiki is often right (but the jury is out, on what the case might be in regard to what is simple.) 2001:2020:31B:8F3A:C973:54DE:1774:107 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marker (pen), okay. Marker (for writing).--My view above, has been changed somewhat - by the arguments below. 2001:2020:31D:B98F:296B:B9E:7506:8672 (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other languages. their options seem to be Marker, marker pen and Felt-tip pen. The "(for writing)" is inaccurate as they are also for drawing and coloring. Writing may be their secondary use actually with art based uses being primary. If we are including "pen", I would suggest doing it without the parenthesis. Pure Evil (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most forms of writing implements can be used for writing and for illustration. Even brushes have been used for prose. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

How do I install Huggle, and is there Global Huggle? CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 16:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good alternative is to use SWViewer incase huggle isn't here. RiggedMint 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I can't access SWVeiwer because they said I needed a global rollback. How do I install it? CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mushroomi!, as you don't have rollback on a project yet, you won't be able to use SWViewer until you get rollback, either on this wiki or another. You are still able to use Huggle on this wiki, without needing rollback. The instructions for installing Huggle are on m:Huggle/Download. --Ferien (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of "year" again ..... groan

When I was a regular I used to bring up a topic for the community to discuss and see if we can gain consensus on; well it's that time again.

Local image uploading

I would like to bring up the possibility of uploading certain images to the local image cache. These would include mostly newspaper, magazine cover, TV news splash screens and possibly album cover movie posters, TV show splash screens and the front covers of books. Only certain images would be allowed to be uploaded and only a user class would be allowed to upload images. We would enquire of both enwiki and the WMF General Counsel as to what fair-use images can be used.

Images bring so much to an article and using the fair-use policy of copyright (no other free image available, smallest possible image etc.. would bring a lot of understanding to many of our articles especially current event news articles, news articles where the copy right has not yet run out in the USA entertainment articles. So, thoughts .... fr33kman 04:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

  • Right now we don't have a copy of one of the most important and seminal images of the early 21st century; The Falling Man because we don't permit fair-use copyright usage of such images; or even the destruction of the twin towers for a likewise reason. A picture speaks a thousand words and these images would add so much more understanding to the articles. We could make it so that included images should only be of a significant cultural nature; small clips of newspaper images that show significant terrorist or other nature event. Only certain users would be given the uploader flag and would have to undergo an RfP type elections. The Fukushima nuclear disaster is a poor article because it doesn't show the relevant explosions and work being done to help. Enwiki allows such images and whilst they have a hard time policing the use of them I think we would have a much easier time. We'd have fewer users uploading images, a narrower field of what is excepted and most of our editors are already admins so policing it would be simple.fr33kman 04:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We could have Quick Deletion critieria such as I1 - Non-fair user of copyrighted images; I2 - Image too large for be fair-use etc..... fr33kman 05:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of images available on commons is far from the reason the Fukashima page is bad. Looking at the En page, of the first 20 images on the page, only 1 is not from commons. The image choices on our page are an issue, but that is not because En has a much better selection of (non-free) images to work with. Pure Evil (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, in many cases fr33kman 19:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where would we find the manpower to dedicate to the legal issues of the constant copyright issues? Who here is qualified in international copyright law and willing to put in all the hours needed to support the project just so we can have a few more images. EU rules and each EU member having more, US, Canada... Many countries have their own versions of the laws we would need to follow. Many of the images we would get are of little use. Why sacrifice effort to be able to include a host of movie posters and album covers? An article is not worthless if it does not have the correct image. That image may help but it is in no way worth wasting untold effort in a system to play image host. And then there are the thousands of useless images which will no doubt be uploaded that will need to be purged regularly. We have issues already keeping up with deletion of articles. Adding image deletions to that will easily over tax our capabilities.
I will never see it worth hosting or processing 50 pictures of some guys truck and cat each day just so an article on the Beatles Abbey Road album can have a picture of the cover. We cannot support something as simple as wikiprojects here. There is no way we could duplicate the work of Commons and keep this place going at the same time. Pure Evil (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has always been one of the main objections "it'll be too much work". I've always envisioned it as only allowing certain people uploading and only certain things like newspaper front pages, magazine front pages, album covers, comic covers etc... The rules would be simple, the size 200px and no additional uploads other than those allowed by the rules we'd create. fr33kman 19:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only approved people would have the flag. fr33kman 19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
actions Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support this. I have noticed multiple article around cartoon either are missing images or have horrible examples. Many articles around animated shows for example. I recently went through and found the best I could find on commons but there is only so much I could do. SpongeBob SquarePants (character) Patrick Star Mr. Krabs Sheldon J. Plankton Karen Plankton (which is a parade float that she is only a small part of) Sandy Cheeks Gary the Snail Chum Bucket. Before I started the Patrick article actually used a tiny emoji for it's infobox. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is certainly a problem, and I'd love for it to be resolved, but how do we go about doing it? Is it just as simple as deciding we accept non-free images, and giving permissions to trusted users to upload them (as we already do for spoken article files)? Do we have any other examples of other wikis doing similar things, other than enwiki? I think everyone would support this, because it would so clearly be helpful, but I think the matter is more how do we go about doing this than do we have the support for it. If it's easy and I'm just being pessimistic, I'm absolutely willing to support. --Ferien (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ferien The Indonesian Wikipedia and the Chinese Wikiedia have their own NFCCs: zh and id. All of the wikis listed in wikidata:Q4391089 likely have local uploads allowed for non-free media. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 20:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to support this, but I think at the moment the issues outweight the benefits: We do have an admin backlog in areas such as RfD closing (some are almost a week overdue); other processes such as good/very good articles have basically stopped working, or they work very slowly. If I now imagine that a group of users has the possibility to upload images, and that an uploaded image needs to be reviewed if it is acceptable, I don't see our community handling that. As of now I know of perhaps 5 regular IP users, and perhaps 5 regular users without the admin flag. I have also found that there were cases, where images were sitting at enwp, or dewp, but that these could be uploaded to commons. And people don't tell me an article is bad, because it can't use a given image. --Eptalon (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand votes for Bird of the Century

A year or two ago, a bunch of us got together and wrote articles for a lot of Australian and New Zealand birds, and now New Zealand's wildlife department is having a Bird of the Century vote to raise awareness: [1]

I'm going to go vote for my feathered buddies. Most of them were listed at WikiProject Animals Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

Are rarely-recognized micronations that have no public locational information available about them considered notable enough for the Simple English Wikipedia? GrinningIodize (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GrinningIodize If there are little to no sources about it, then it probably won't pass the WP:GNG. Article subjects should have good coverage from reliable resources. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 20:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. More people should seriously consider covering Great Mojaveland in the future. GrinningIodize (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the nation is notable/has coverage about the specific micronation, then it can pass WP:GNG. (Example: Molossia and The Aerican Empire.) RiggedMint 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Request for Checkusership

A new request for checkusership has started. Your participation is welcome. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a comment and/or Q&A subsection in the venue? MathXplore (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MathXplore I don't see why not. It should have been there in the first place. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my mistake. I'll add one now. fr33kman 20:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Request for Adminship

A new request for adminship has started. Your participation is welcome. fr33kman 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for de-adminship

I don't see a policy about this. How many votes are needed and what percent in support of de-adminship are needed to remove this right? Kk.urban (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's never come up to my knowledge. Ideally it would start with a comment made on this page and from there to a formal Request for Comment. I would think that if a significant percentage were to vote no confidence then deadminship would become a discussion for the crats. fr33kman 18:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman It has come up... you closed one: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Bluegoblin7.
My biggest concern is that an RFA generally requires 75% of the votes in favor (according to Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship). Does an RFDA require 75% of the votes in favor, or only 25% (to show that the user no longer has 75% support), or 50% (to show that most users no longer support them) or some other number? Kk.urban (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! I completely forgot about Gobby! Well it was over 11 years ago and I have slept since then plus I'm getting old now you know! :) I think that desysoping would be done if a significant percentage of the supports for desysoping supported it. Something like 35%-50% want to desysop would show a lot of people not having confidence. fr33kman 18:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfdAs are very rare, recent cases are Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Eptalon and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Lofty abyss where there was a clear consensus in both cases. I would personally just treat it as an RfA but vice versa, or a bit like a confirmation, where if something like 30%+ of people voting for adminship removal would result in a "successful" RfdA. --Ferien (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed fr33kman 20:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reintegrating simple English

Hello. I would like to undergo an unblocking process on simple English. I will not specify my identity right away. All I will say is that you are the user who undertook my blocking, and before I start, I would like to have your consent. Cheers!

Globally locked fr33kman 19:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi there, could someone take a look at the sources in Becker (factory) and Russtone Brand please? They are in Russian so I can't understand them. I can't seem to find anything else about the companies online. Thanks in advance, :) --Ferien (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon: Reference Previews

 

A new feature is coming to your wiki soon: Reference Previews are popups for references. Such popups have existed on wikis as local gadgets for many years. Now there is a central solution, available on all wikis, and consistent with the PagePreviews feature.

Reference Previews will be visible to everyone, including readers. If you don’t want to see them, you can opt out. If you are using the gadgets Reference Tooltips or Navigation Popups, you won’t see Reference Previews unless you disable the gadget.

Reference Previews have been a beta feature on many wikis since 2019, and a default feature on some since 2021. Deployment is planned for November 22.

-- For Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team,


Johanna Strodt (WMDE), 13:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Thank you. Bobherry Talk My Changes 13:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a (relevant) page that will get archived; Re: Delete

Alina Morozova (nutritionist).

"18:08, 13 November 2023 ... deleted page Alina Morozova (QD A4: The page is about a person, group, company, product or website, and does not claim notability)".

Opera non verba? 2001:2020:8335:DAB5:82:BBB4:4008:9AD7 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject

I have made a new wikiproject. It is called wikiproject United States. SIMPLEIST (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 cool! – Angerxiety! 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck :) fr33kman 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun :D CocoaSugar ( 🥥) 18:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Simpleist: Good luck with the project. Please note that WikiProject pages should not have any content categories on them. I just removed the main United States category from the page again. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! GrinningIodize (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! Bobherry Talk My Changes 11:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Have fun! --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 03:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery is now a good article...

Hello all, I just promnoted Slavery to good article. Thank you to all who contributed; and please don't let the flag keep you from improving or changing it.. Eptalon (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congratulations of a lot of hard work!!!! Well done!" fr33kman 03:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially now that teachers in Flordia aren't allowed to talk about it as much. Good job, Eptie and co! Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    its not like US teachers were ever teaching about slavery to start with. The closest was how the Atlantic slave trade affected certain people in the United States.. so a tiny percentage of the actual subject? Did they ever talk about the 4 million slaves that basically founded Brazil or the fact that there are more people living in slavery in Africa today than ever lived in the US? Is the history of Liberia as a home to former slaves ever discussed? Pure Evil (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it truly deplorable that subjects like slavery aren't covered in some schools. On the one hand, it is clear that the teacher needs to find a language that is adapted both to the age, and perhaps social background of the children. On the other, it is clear that there are also motivations that are purely economic: You can't have cheap clothing / footwear, and at the same time expect that those who manufacture these goods have good working conditions, and a pay they can live from. Probably the same applies to the fishing industry, and those people who navigates ships with commodities from A to B. The subject of slavery/forced labor (etc) is endlessly complex, so finding a comprtomise on what to tell the pupils probably isn't easy. Yet is a duty of the school to educate people so they grow to be responsible citizens. Eptalon (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number articles

I noticed that someone has messed with some of the number articles, like 20 (number). That leads me to the question, how should we write their opening sentence. Do we want:

  • 20 (twenty) is the number that is after 19 and before 21, or
  • Twenty (20) is the number that is after nineteen and before twenty-one,

or something else? Kk.urban (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the current articles starts:

  • Twenty-three is a natural number. It comes between twenty-two and twenty-four, and is an odd number,

so we could do that instead. I do think it's important to include the digits (23). Kk.urban (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wound go with a combination of #2 and #3 while keeping it as formal as possible:
Pure Evil (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings are not strong but I like the "Word (numeral)" form more. I believe it mimics usage in legal documents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think word (number) would be best. Bobherry Talk My Changes 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Numeral" is a more complex term, though. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is probably a good thing that "Twenty-three (23)" (word (numeral)) was suggested instead of Twenty-three (numeral). The second would be a unlikely name change for the pages implied but would have nothing to do with the subject of this discussion so I question why it was even brought up. Pure Evil (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definately, word (number). fr33kman 22:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean, like, "Twenty-three (number) or "Twenty-three (23)".--(I am fine with, "Twenty-three (number)", however, I can deal with being on the losing side of this discussion.) 2001:2020:8335:DAB5:FDED:F6C7:642:D5D7 (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone here is saying that the text of the article should be "Twenty-three (23)". But the title should be 23 (number), at least unless we have a consensus to change it. Kk.urban (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically "twenty three," "23," and "XXIII" are all numbers. If the word numerals is too complex for use outside of talkspace, then how about "Number-as-word (number-as-symbols)" with an example? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page good for mainspace

I made this page but it was moved to my userspace. I tried to improve it, is it good now? User:Immanuelle/Izumo clan Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle Hi, the page looks good overall. I made some edits to it:
  • Definite and indefinite articles should not normally be bolded as part of the article's lead.
  • Avoid repeating a link, especially when they occur in the same paragraph
  • I also made some copyedits (double periods, space before ref, etc.)
— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga thank you. I appreciate that.
What do you think about this page? User:Immanuelle/Kamayama Shrine
I want to appeal a block I got for making bad pages and am not sure where to go for it, but I intend on always asking here if a page is good and receiving an affirmative before trying to move one into mainspace, or ideally get someone else to do so. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it might be a bit too complicated still personally, better for vocabulary than sentence structure Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga I'd appreciate you moving it into namespace but idk if that might be against rules or something you are personally uncomfortable. The article User:Immanuelle/Izumo clan, I don't feel good about the shrine quite yet. User:Operator873 seems to be on a break which makes my situation questionable Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle Unfortunately, if I were to do that, I would be assisting you in circumventing your partial block. I will review some more of your articles and try to get in touch with Operator. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 08:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga that’s fair. I hope I didn’t come off as manipulative over it. I tried to make it all clear what was going on. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've disabled the categories on the draft page. Once it becomes mainspace, you can follow the instructions I've left in the edit summary to renable them. Thank you, --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 03:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:ContentTranslation

I've noticed that when translating articles from Eng. to Simple Eng., no translating is actually happening. I'm trying to get Apple Inc. to GA status but without CT it's really hard. Any advice? Contributor118,784 Let's talk 19:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor 118,784: No translation occurs on Special:ContentTranslation when going from English to Simple English because it is the same base language. All the simplification of language has to be done manually. --Ferien (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you Ferien. Have a good rest of your day!! Contributor118,784 Let's talk 19:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributor 118,784 it is still useful for some things like making sure you don't break links, and converting templates, but does not change the language. If you use it from other languages it also requires manual simplification and review. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I often use it as follows: You can copy a paragraph (from the ENWP to the SimpleWP) article. You can the rewrite/edit that paragraph for simplicity, and copy the references, where they fit. Once this is done you delete the original EnWP paragraph. Benefits are (to some extent): Templates are copied, categories are copied, if they exist. It isn't less work, but in some cases, the work is easier. Eptalon (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nordostniederdeutsch

Though having caused the current article title, I suggest to move this article to Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch dialect. On de:Diskussion:Nordostniederdeutsch, the talk page of the German article, there was a founded desire to delete the article. Nordostniederdeutsch is an article on Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch and Central Pomeranian together. de:Mittelpommersch is the German article on Central Pomeranian. It suggests, that Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch and Central Pomeranian are quite different. Sarcelles (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bigger group of dialects we could use? Eptalon (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the single term Central Pomeranian it is only about the Mecklenburgisch-Vorpommersch dialect. there is no major group of dialects we could use. I don't like the category East Low German. Sarcelles (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but per this section, on the signature policy page it states that images can't be used in signatures. Does this include emojis or the like? Tsugaru let's talk! :) 04:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@つがる Emojis can be encoded as text (example: 👍), so they behave more or less like text. On the other hand, images have different interactions with text, which makes it annoying to use in signatures. That's just my take on it though. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fehufanga Hmm, interesting. This seems like a 'grey area' in a sense. I searched in the archives of this page, and it says that emojis technically count as pictures... Tsugaru let's talk! :) 04:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fehufanga See above, ping fix. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 04:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@つがる: Enwiki says Unicode symbols (including emoji) may be used in your signature, as long as the signature complies with the other guidelines on this page.. I suppose this can be added to the policy if nobody objects.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fehufanga Is it possible to have a RFC on this? Tsugaru let's talk! :) 01:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally not a fan of emojis in signatures. It is very distracting. -Djsasso (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso I agree 100%. Not only that, they always have a chance of displaying differently on different devices. Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations

This includes actual inventions, and needs a definition which allows editors to see whether a page is justified. Mostly, they should not be on Simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why in principle do you think this encyclopedia shouldn't cover micronations? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability and lack of features shown by regular nations. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should cover them if they meet our notability requirements. If they are notable, we should have articles on them, like at enwiki. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if they meet our notability requirements and are not merely self promoting. We need external objective sources. Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I meant. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they meet the usual WP:N requirements they are perfectly valid here. -Djsasso (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

do i need an account to create a page its about an obscure topic thats on english wikipedia but not here 104.235.59.6 (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its about a video game 104.235.59.6 (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an account if you don't want one. Though I do encourage you to create one. -Djsasso (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i ask because i was told my ip adress is a vandalism hotspot and i dont wanna risk it with an account. i could do a vpn but i have no money. 104.235.59.6 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the benefits of an account is that your IP address is no longer visible. If you plan on contributing regularly an account is a good option. Note: creating an account is free, no one will ask money of you for contributing to wikipedia. Eptalon (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not required to make an account, but making one is free and there are many benefits. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying quotes

Do we simplify quotes as well when making pages? SIMPLEIST (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle we should, but its often tricky. Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you're actually quoting someone, but you can explain the quote. I watch out for cases where someone has tried to avoid simplifying by just using a quote with complex language, because that's not good. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can alwys replace complex words, with simpler ones, brackets.. Eptalon (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you know the right syntax for doing that. Otherwise, anything inside quotation marks should be exactly what was said. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Archipelago

Should this be changed to List of islands in Indonesia? I think that in English, the archipelago is usually called the Malay Archipelago. Kk.urban (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kk.urban The article is practically identical to the version created by a blocked user in January. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly DYK?

Hello, at the moment, there are 115 approved dyk hooks. Sholud/can we get to a weekly cycle, ideally automated? Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this comes up often, my opinion is still no because we always seem to get ourselves into a position where we have a fair number of them we get excited and crank up the rate at which we show them, we then run out and go many months without any new ones. I still believe we should go at a much slower rate so that we always have a healthy backlog to display so we never get into a position where we can run out and have to wait many months for new ones. -Djsasso (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the current rate, they will last until February 28, 2025. If weekly, they will last until June 28, 2024. If monthly, they will last until May 31, 2026. (That includes the queues.) Kk.urban (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have half a year's worth of hooks stored, and that is assuming we switch to weekly. We also continue to get new hooks proposed and approved. I would say that this would probably be fine. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be increasing the size of the queue from 5 to 6 or 7. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The semi—protection of Generation X, the Millennials, Generation Z and the Generation Alpha pages here on the Simple English

The editors of Internet Protocol group addresses have been inserting their own point of view or questionable sources into the Simple English Wikipedia pages listed here. Nobody ever owns any articles although some of the IP’s act as if they do, making it hard for articles on any Wikipedia to have a neutral viewpoint. That includes claims in the Millennials article saying between 1981–1996 would be years between which they were born when in fact many more reliable pieces of information are saying 1980–1995 are the actual years for many world areas. These Wikipedia editing IP operators make it difficult for the encyclopedia to be true and neutral. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for 3 months each. fr33kman 20:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much statistical detail

I think a few articles like Frederick, Kansas have way too much statistical detail. This is a settlement with less than 20 people, yet there are 395 words of population statistics. The US census has the same amount of statistics for every city, but it seems ridiculous for small places like this. Also, do we want to replace this with the new info for 2020, or keep the 2000 and 2010 info while adding 2020 also? I have already mentioned this at the English Wikipedia Teahouse, as the article there is similar.

I especially want to get the opinion of Junedude433 if they are around, because they created most of these articles about places in Kansas and transferred the statistics from English Wikipedia. Kk.urban (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical data is easy to get (if it is collected). You do however need to make a difference between actual surveys, and calculated data (based on the last 2-3 data sets, and this growth, we expect the figures to be ...). Except for the most obvious, I would see this in a separate table, ideally updated by a wikidata bot (needs appropriate flagging); also the bot should only update numbers in the table. I don't know about the U.S., but actual survey happen perhaps every ten years or so. Eptalon (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They take an actual survey every ten years (2000, 2010, 2020, etc). Do you think we should include the older statistics or just the newest data? Kk.urban (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it differently: This a place were "currently" 18 people live. What can you write about the place? - Sure, some of them have a long hisotry, at other times, it was the breakoff religious ocmmunity who founded a new town, and nowadays, few follow their ideals, yet in other plaves its the place where half of the people work at the gas station three quarters of the way between A and B.Population statistics can be interesting, if you include hem in a table, that highlights the changes... Eptalon (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18 people are 6 one-child-famililes... Eptalon (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the statistics, we know there are 6 married couples, 2 of them have children and 4 don't, there are 4 children total, and there are 2 people living alone. Why we need to know that, is another question... Kk.urban (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think about it differently: What can you aay about such a place, especially in America? - If it wasn't ofr stats there'd be very little left; still we decided geographic placces are inherently notable. 'New York City is a city in the state with the same name. Almost 9 million people live there. The city is located on the Atlanic Ocean, next to the city of New Jersey... Eptalon (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waking me up, kk.urban. What was supposed to be a short nap actually took several years haha. I'll write some of my thoughts here.

1) The standard English Wikipedia, and basically every other one too, includes this data and goes back a few decades. Wikipedia has existed since at least 2001, and the 2000 Census was the most recent. For many city articles, they include the 2000 data because it was added in there back then, but it is also relevant and well-sourced. Personally, I see no reason to get rid of it, even if it isn't "current." Wikipedia articles have much information about history and the like, and demographics are deeply intertwined with it.

2) For the vast majority of the articles I've created, I copy edited them from the standard English Wikipedia. I found a way to write them that technically satisfies the simple language requirements and ran with it. I had encountered a few different discussions in the past about what articles on the Simple English Wikipedia should look like, with some saying the articles themselves should be simple, and others saying that it should only be the language that's simple - for this is still an encyclopedia. I can see the merits to both, but in practice, I stuck with the latter argument. Therefore, I kept the statistical data, even if it did seem a bit much for some of these articles.

3) Notability does not change across the wikis. A city or county is notable in and of itself, even if it's a small town in the middle of nowhere. I found your example of Frederick to be particularly interesting, because there's more that happened there than some of the other small towns whose articles I created. Even within that very county, I'd say Bushton, Kansas has even less to write about, since at least Frederick has an unusual electoral event. Regardless, if there is notability to be had, it only makes sense to create the article. Just because one person doesn't find it interesting doesn't someone else won't, or that it somehow isn't notable.

4) I, and other editors, can only write about things which are sourced (lest we suddenly stop caring about that). Census data is often some of the only things which are from reliable sources which are relevant to the location. My article on Lawrence, Kansas has much more because much more happened there. If there wasn't as deep of a history there, the history section would be much smaller. The statistical data may have an outsized effect on some of those towns's articles, but that's because the available information skews heavily towards demographics.

I do agree that I'd rather just have some sort of population table that gets updated. I think that would trim the fat of many articles. There is only so much that you can write about using raw numbers. I'd rather the actual body paragraphs of demographics be about genuine analysis, since the raw numbers could be much better expressed in a table. However, I do not know coding well enough to create something like that, so I have stuck with what exists.

Do with what you like about it. This is Wikipedia; nobody "owns" an article, and everything is done by consensus. My opinion shouldn't matter any more than yours, although I do appreciate getting pinged, since it makes me feel important and popular haha. While I personally favor keeping the information, I definitely could see why we should at least skim it. ~Junedude433talk 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Rochefourchat. 1 hoouse, one person living there. Probably one of the smallest villages of France (not counting those that were destroyed during the First and Second WOrld War).... Eptalon (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to suppose that most readers of Simple English have problems with numbers. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should rise our standards as to what makes a place notable. The road where I have my cottage in Canada is a private community but I don't think a patch of dirt road with 15 houses on it is notable. fr33kman 19:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Why in infoboxes it's "spouse" or "Issues", shouldn't it be more simpler for others to understand? Like "Husband/Wife" or "Children" Kathleen782 (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should be. The problem is when infoboxes get updated from enwiki it'll be overwritten. Good point though. fr33kman 21:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kathleen782: BTW, it's "issue", singular, not "issues". It's a collective noun when used this way. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uncategorized pages

I'm finding lots of Uncategorized pages which are not included in this list. For example: Marie-Jean Hérault de Séchelles last changed on 15 November 2023, at 04:13. Why doesnt this work? Rathfelder (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That category does not exist. Do you mean Special:UncategorizedPages? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those reports are not generated dynamically when you request the page: they are made on a schedule by the software (I think weekly?), so they will always be a little out of sync with reality. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but the current version was last updated at 15:10, 4 December 2023. Rathfelder (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler word

Is it okay to change {{Convert}} so it uses the word "people" per square mile/ square km instead of "inhabitants"? Kk.urban (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kk.urban: I would think so. Just be aware that the change might be undone if/when the template is ever refreshed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Actually, I can't do it because it's fully protected. Kk.urban (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be in Module:Convert/data but it is also protected and needs an admin to edit it. Pure Evil (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions to Wikipedia:RecentChanges

Wikipedia:RecentChanges already has Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. It might be good to add Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests and Category:Wikipedians looking for help. Kk.urban (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why not. fr33kman 19:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will effect faster responses because more people will notice. Some of the help requests have been waiting for months. Kk.urban (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South and South-East Asia reliable sources

I have asked for help on the relevant Village Pumps for creating a list of reliable sources in those areas of the world as I feel we are not treating BLPs and notability issues of those nations fairly. We tend to grab a quick look and decide it's an A4. I think we owe due diligence to these articles. If anyone has information that can help please add it below. Thanks! :) fr33kman 19:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few:
But, these will not address two of the most common areas where this comes up: current entertainment, and local government officials. --Gotanda (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a page rename

Hello! Can someone rename the page Parapneuroptera to Paraneoptera for me please? I believe the user who created it accidentally got the name of this group of insects wrong, because "Paraneoptera" is the more usual name for them and I cannot find any source for the name "Parapneuroptera". I cannot do this move myself, as I have not yet made 10 edits on Simple English Wikipedia. (If it helps to know, I am a user who is normally active on English Wikipedia, and I happened to find out about this page from a Google search for another group of insects, in order to update insect pages on English Wikipedia) Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. MathXplore (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ 102.215.254.111 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should dots get connected?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rolly_Lambert_Fogoum, and
Rolly Lambert Fogoum.--Good luck while i try to improve other articles. 2001:2020:319:E17D:7D33:CE93:E460:835B (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simpul skitsofreeneea

They are making everything long and convoluted again. See page history of Delusion. Kk.urban (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the page History of schizophrenia is full of random unrelated things. Like Sigmund Freud started smoking tobacco in 1880-1881, America was discovered by Europeans in 1492. So what? Kk.urban (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of a ban because this is exactly a topic on which we should have basic pages in simple English. It is one of the most common forms of mental dysfunction, and the editor has been given more than enough time to adjust. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a ban might be the only way forward here. The articles are getting to the point where they are just too hard to understand and contain information that is just not relevant to the subject. fr33kman 20:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a CIR ban. I do not like banning people who are trying to help, but this person cannot write in Simple English. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. fr33kman 17:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well as an assessment of my own faults or not faults using The https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/:

"The meaning from the etymology of the word: schizophrenia, is by splitting the word into the parts schizo and phren 51.2. The meaning by joining the parts together again is splitting psychic functions. Schizo means splitting and phren means psychic functions 52.9. Dr Eugen Bleuler invented the word 56.9. Dr. Bleuler used word parts from ancient Greek 84.3. Making new words from ancient Greek words is known as neoclassical 68.8. (whole passage: 62)

The fundamental meaning from the definition is "association-splitting". 0

The word -phrenia means for some people a condition 62.3. A health condition isn't necessarily a problem or bad 45.4. For other people -phrenia means a disorder 39. Disorders are always thought of as bad or a problem by doctors 76.2. (whole passage: 62)

Phren in the original work by Dr Bleuler means the psychic functions, today this is the functions as they are in psychology 49.1. The ancient Greek word (as the English language translation) phren meant "midriff (diaphragm), heart, mind, thought" 63.7. The word phren is also used to describe part of the inside of some-ones body (human anatomy): the phrenic nerve, which is connected to the diaphragm 45.1. (whole passage: 49.9)

the whole passage is: 8th & 9th grade Flesch Reading Ease Score: 60.9 (my version)

The same section: Meaning:

"The word schizophrenia comes from two Greek words that mean to split and mind, because there is a 'split' between what's going on in the person's mind and what is actually happening 55.9. A person with schizophrenia does not change between different personalities: they have only one 31.9. The condition in which a person has more than one personality, meaning they act like a different person at different times, is dissociative identity disorder 20.7. There are no medical tests that can be used to say if a person has schizophrenia or not, so getting a diagnosis depends on which list of symptoms are used 49.5. It also depends on the doctor or psychologist who talks to the person 66.7. The lists of symptoms include wording like "Disorganized [not organized, or oddly organized] speech present for a significant portion of time" 33.2. It is difficult to agree on what exactly "disorganized speech" is and how disorganized it has to be. It is also difficult to agree on how long a "significant portion of time" is. Because of this, two doctors or psychologists trying to make a diagnosis may often disagree 55.2. One will say that the person is schizophrenic and the other will say he or she is not 78.6."

the calculation for the whole passage is 10th to 12th grade Flesch Reading Ease Score: 51 (version 10 October 2023 before I made any changes)

Obviously the other passages maybe don't show I made an improvement. I'll make the calculations after saving this reply. But the criticism is not true in the example of the Meaning section. I deleted the 0 Flesch-Kincaid sentence "association-splitting" and re-calculated: the Flesch Reading Ease Score: is instead 59.4 paradoxically. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a calculation of the whole articles minus the reference numbers: my version is 41.3 the version before I made any changes: 38.6 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example:

In 2002, the term for schizophrenia in Japan was changed from “Seishin-Bunretsu-Byō”　精神分裂病 (“mind-split-disease”) to “Tōgō-shitchō-shō”　統合失調症 (“integration disorder”), in an attempt to reduce feelings of shame or embarrassment. 24.1 College graduate ( Very difficult to read )

was eliminated by my changes. The scores are independently verifiable at the link: User:Simpul skitsofreeneea/schizophrenia datum where I have copied the articles. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I haven't achieved:

We currently aim for a score of 70-90.

— Eptalon (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC): Talk:Schizophrenia#Way forward..

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Though ocviously:

Nothing has changed. The article is even more complex and confusing than ever.

— Fehufanga 23:56, 22 November 2023

isn't true by the F K calculation (which was a topic in Talk since 00:52, 23 January 2012: Talk:Schizophrenia#Readability) Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flesch-Kincaid says it's 10th-12th grade (or 57.11)

— Eptalon (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC): Talk:Schizophrenia#Todo_list..

but inputting the article copy (I didn't delete the numbers which are the references - deletion reduces the score slightly) v. 00:17, 6 November 2023 is 50.3 10th to 12th grade ( Fairly difficult to read ), v. 09:16, 30 October 2023 which is the version immediately before Eptalon's post 49.1 College ( Difficult to read ). v 09:13, 11 November 2023 is 58.7 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC) v. 09:29, 7 November 2023 58.9 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 11:29, 15 November 2023 50.4, 11:30, 19 November 2023 50, 21:54, 21 November 2023 50.3, 02:10, 25 November 2023 (the current v.) 50.6, 01:33, 24 November 2023 (the v. before I deleted 0 as shown at 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) (under this heading) 50.7 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 13:49, 13 November 2023 50.1, 11:35, 11 November 2023 50.4, 09:13, 11 November 2023 58.7, 12:24, 11 November 2023 50.3, 12:12, 10 November 2023 58.7, 12:59, 7 November 2023 58.9, 08:09, 6 November 2023 49.8, 06:49, 6 November 2023 50.1, 06:31, 6 November 2023 50.1, 06:26, 3 November 2023 50.3, 16:30, 2 November 2023 49.9 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC) 12:45, 8 November 2023 & 12:52, 8 November 2023 58.7 versions after the changes because of reference format problems. 18:50, 20 October 2023 46.6, 15:23, 18 October 2023 46.4 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC), 23:32, 16 October 2023 47.9 (before I made changes: 22:36, 26 November 2013 40.1, 20:52, 3 March 2013 40.2 - I reverted to version 12:52, 8 November 2023 58.7 version after the changes because of reference format problems Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 02:10, 25 November 2023 (the current v.) 50.6,
  • 01:33, 24 November 2023 (the v. before I deleted 0 as shown at 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) (under this heading) 50.7
  • 21:54, 21 November 2023 50.3,
  • 13 November 2023 50.1,
  • 12:24, 11 November 2023 50.3,
  • 11:35, 11 November 2023 50.4,
  • 11:30, 19 November 2023 50,
  • 11:29, 15 November 2023 50.4,
  • 09:13, 11 November 2023 58.7,
  • 12:12, 10 November 2023 58.7,
  • 12:45, 8 November 2023 & 12:52, 8 November 2023 58.7 versions after the changes because of reference format problems.
  • 12:59, 7 November 2023 58.9,
  • 09:29, 7 November 2023 58.9
  • 08:09, 6 November 2023 49.8,
  • 06:49, 6 November 2023 50.1,
  • 06:31, 6 November 2023 50.1,
  • 00:17, 6 November 2023 is 50.3 10th to 12th grade ( Fairly difficult to read ),
  • 06:26, 3 November 2023 50.3,
  • 16:30, 2 November 2023 49.9
  • 09:16, 30 October 2023 which is the version immediately before Eptalon's post 49.1 College ( Difficult to read ).
  • 18:50, 20 October 2023 46.6,
  • 15:23, 18 October 2023 46.4
  • 23:32, 16 October 2023 47.9
  • before I made changes: 22:36, 26 November 2013 40.1,
  • 20:52, 3 March 2013 40.2

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the score for current History of schizophrenia is 44, v. 15:17, 31 October 2023 42.9 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current version intro: 47.9, Classification: 68, Meaning: 60, History: 53.9, About schizophrenia: 57.9, Management by treatments, prevention, outlook and hope: 0, Risk factors and possible causes: 69.4, Society and culture: 31.5 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) v. 05:07, 25 November 2023 Management: 24.1 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC) article score after change with "Management" 58.7 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of these calculations. When I ran my stats on the intro a few days ago I had a score somewhere in the 40s. I also had an average sentence length of I think 21 or 22 words. Reducing that to 10-15 will improve that score. Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

intro's:

  • 14:02, 17 November 2023 35.5
  • 11:56, 15 November 2023 47.9
  • 06:55, 6 November 2023 50.3
  • 00:03, 5 November 2023 49.1
  • 21:54, 1 November 2023 52.3
  • 20:28, 1 November 2023 51.1
  • 16:03, 31 October 2023 49.2
  • 11:29, 31 October 2023 49.4

I changed the intro to 21:54 without a part which actually is an error (the score after is 52.4): the whole article score: 59.3 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

intro's:

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with 18:28, 21 February 2023 input as the intro + "Bleuler 1908 sentence" retained from the previous v., the whole article is reduced as 57.8, same score without the 1908 sentence Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went to read the Schizophrenia article and saw that it's very problematic.
  • In general, the prose introduced by Simpul skitsofreeneea is convoluted and lacks grammatical coherence. For example, we have this from the lead: Schizophrenia is in head and speak and thought not a good thing to have. That is what doctors say. The doctor who say: psychiatrist. Doctor (name don't/doesn't matter). Schizophrenia is some kind of problem of health. This problem is with these things: minds and behaviours. What does this even mean? Schizophrenia in head and speak and thought not a good thing to have. is not valid English. in head speak and thought is not understandable immediately to me, which makes it less simple. Why was it necessary to add (name don't/doesn't matter)?
  • The formula for FK boils down to   (removing coefficients and constants). Using fewer words in sentences and shorter words can increase the score. The FK score doesn't take into account whether or not the text is comprehensible. In this case, the text is very difficult to understand, but uses short sentences and words, which gives it a "good" FK score. FK score isn't everything if the article is barely understandable.
  • Also, @Simpul skitsofreeneea please stop bludgeoning discussion you participate in. You are not obligated to reply in every single one of them, and repeated long walls of text don't give a good impression.
At the very least, Simpul skitsofreenea should be blocked indefinitely for lacking competence to edit in proper Simple English and unwillingness to listen to advice. A ban from editing psychology-related topics is also an option, but their editing in other topic areas don't convince me that there's anything different: [2], [3] — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 04:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga: Is four users a big enough consensus for a block? It seems like the only objection so far is the user themself. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The debate began: 01:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC) the version at that time was 22:21, 21 November 2023 Flesch-Kincaid score was: 50.2, so I made changes to improve the score: is now 77.6. Why you don't just change the wording yourself to improive the wording, if you know so much about the F K score? You want to threaten me again with banning, but what difference do you make to the article? The article is now reverted as of: 02:42, 27 November 2023‎ QuicoleJR to F K 49.1. Your criticisms is of the intro but what about the wording in the other parts of the article? As a matter of fact there isn't any problems there to find. But you're here a pack of wolves explaining to me my problem oh one editor scent to another this message and then another another scent: did you detect something you could criticize is that it? Here I reverted 02:42 with the problems shown solved (it took aout 10 seconds to solve) the intro: F K 87.5 the whole article score 77.6 exactly the same as in the prior state. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You all nose, I don't know, that's all I know. But the article intro is now correct while you all wait to send another message here. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any problems indicate exactly what those problems are on the talk page of the article. I improved the article as you indicated was 50.2 i changed to 77.6 is changed again from 27 November is still 77.6. I would argue but how to convince fascist wolves of a reality if all they want to do is send messages here. If there is a problem show what it is. The F K score is correct, the wording is improved, if you aren't happy show the problems: you state "the article" I don't see where in the article the wording is wrong. For all I know you are just a stupid lot of people who don't understand the subjet so there is no way to improve the article for someone to understand if you are the people reading it. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not call people fascists. That is a very quick way to get blocked. Read WP:NPA. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is very easily provable: I improve the article all you do is send messages here: you detected the prolems but did nothing about them: instead you choose to character assassinate my efforts. How to commend such choices. The facts in the article aren't wrong. You're simply a destructive set of people without the thought of a constructive effort. Wouldn't you agree? Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Simpul skitsofreeneea No I don't, because nobody is obligated to repair your broken English, and frankly at this point, repairing your prose is going to be a timesink to the community. We are volunteers, after all.
There are many problems in the Schizophrenia article. I chose to point out the lede because that stood out immediately as problematic to me. There are many other problems in the article that I didn't point out, and anyone who understands regular English or Simple English should know that these are problematic. If you still want me to point out an example: The meanings is false, and, or, meanings is impossible: "meanings" is plural and "is" is the third person singular form of "be". They do not agree. This is not proper English grammar.
@QuicoleJR We'll leave it to an uninvolved admin judge that one enough time has passed. I still support at the minimum an indefinite block for incompetence and lack of understanding of English, let alone Simple English, and the unwillingness to heed to advice. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of understanding of English is because of the needs of improving the F K score. If someone were to compare en with simple the score of the former is 30.9 and the latter is 77.2. The languagw on en is presumaly perfect. You're judging my ailities for obedience to the rules of grammar and knowledge of the English language from the need of the F K score.

Assessment of articles

Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are focusing too much on the FK score. Smaller words do not mean the page is simpler. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor is putting too much weight on FK even after reminders that it is not that reliable. The editor is unable to engage with feedback on their writing, but only pushes back. Anyone may edit here, but this editor has shown again and again that they cannot or will not write in simple English. Long past time for a block and then a rollback of all of these articles. --Gotanda (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article sentences

Intro

  1. Schizophrenia (sz) is a problem.
  2. That is what doctors say and think.
  3. The type of doctor: psychiatrist.
  4. Sz is some kind of problem of health.
  5. This problem is with: someones mind and their behaviour.
  6. Doctors think the problem is with the brain.
  7. Not everyone needs to know they have a brain though.
  8. Doctors definitely do.
  9. Someone's brain is in their head.
  10. Doctors give drugs as tablets or injections.
  11. Other treatments also are possible.
  12. How sz happens in the first place, doctors don't know.
  13. Being sz is thought of as being abnormal.
  14. Most people recover and can live a normal life.
  15. Most of the time, the problems of sz starts in the late teens or early 20s.
  16. It is a common problem.
  17. In 2022, about 24 million people worldwide had this problem.
  18. It affects about the same number of men and women.
  19. In men, it seems to start about five years earlier than in women.
  20. Some people think they don't have sz, when a doctor tells them they do.
  21. The difference is the intelligence of the people and the doctors.
  22. Psychology is known as the science of behaviors, and science of minds, the problems of how to understand though what sz is is more a subject of psychiatry.
  23. Psychiatrists mostly think sz is an illness.
  24. They think: is illness, so needs medicines.
  25. Some psychology and psychiatry people in the past thought sz is not an illness though.
  26. They thought psychiatrists and drug makers-sellers hurt sz people.
  27. A doctor made the word and idea.
  28. His name: Dr Eugen Bleuler.
  29. He made the word sometime before April 1908.
  30. Sz is made up of all different things from science in doctors minds.

B

  1. Doctors learnt at their school
  2. Sz is a "mental disorder", and a "disease".
  3. Sz is "psychosis". [22][23][24][25][26][1][27][28]

C

  1. The meanings of the parts of the word schizophrenia and how the parts make meanings in the word
  2. The word parts are schizo and phren and phrenia.
  3. Schizo means splitting.
  4. Phren means psyche and phrenia means psychic.
  5. How the word parts have meaning is known as the etymology.
  6. The meaning only by joining the parts together is splitting of the psychic functions.
  7. Psychic is from psyche.
  8. Dr Eugen Bleuler invented the word.
  9. Dr. Bleulers word is neoclassical thought because it uses word parts from ancient Greek.
  10. The ancient Greek word phren (in ancient Greek this is: φρήν) meant "midriff (diaphragm), heart, mind, thought".[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]
  11. Dr Bleuler wrote a book about his invention.
  12. In the book that Dr Bleuler wrote, the word has a slightly different meaning though.
  13. In the book that Dr Bleuler wrote phren means instead firstly the word "associations". [32]
  14. Today, doctors don't think Dr Bleuler's meaning has as much meaning as the meanings that they think the word means today.
  15. Phren in Dr Bleuler's book means the psychic functions, today this is the functions in psychology. [36][31]
  16. The word -phrenia is only a condition (which isn't necessarily bad) [37][38] or a disorder (which doctors always think is bad).[39]
  17. The word phren is also used to describe part of the inside of some-ones body (human anatomy): the phrenic nerve, which is connected to the diaphragm. [40]
  18. The word schizophrenia is a noun. [41][42][43]

D

  1. In the past
  2. The first to use the word schizophrenia was Dr. Eugen Bleuler (born: 1857 died: 1939).
  3. This doctor lived in Switzerland.
  4. Also worked in a hospital in Switzerland.
  5. Some doctors went to a place in Germany known as Berlin when it was April 1908.
  6. Dr Bleuler went to Berlin also.
  7. Dr Bleuler spoke about his idea and the other doctors listened.
  8. Alot of what the doctors thought about was patients in hospitals with mind problems.
  9. Before, doctors were saying people had a problem which is named: dementia praecox.
  10. Dr Bleuler had the idea to stop doctors using the words: dementia praecox, because he thought it was a bad idea.
  11. Dr Bleuler's idea of the symptoms of sz was made by using ideas made by Dr Sigmund Freud.
  12. Dr Jung was with Dr Bleuler in the same hospital from 1900 to 1909.

E

  1. The things that happen with people to do with sz
  2. All the things that could happen at any time are:
  3. first (1): normal
  4. after first (2): with some symptoms
  5. after second (3): health becomes worse
  6. after third (4): patient hasn't become healthy again (an enduring problem of health)
  7. This is if somone's life is like counting 1 to 4.
  8. Anyone though could go from 2, 3, or 4 back to 1 again, depends on what happens to them.
  9. The doctor's decision makes someone be with sz: the word doctors use is "diagnosis"
  10. See the main article: Diagnosis of schizophrenia
  11. Doctors know about someone by what they see, hear, and already know or then know by seeing or hearing, mostly, but also by smell.
  12. Nurses and social workers also maybe help a doctor to decide.
  13. The things they found, after making the decision of "sz", these things are: the symptoms.
  14. Symptoms
  15. These are:
  16. "Persistent delusions" Someone has had thoughts and emotions.
  17. The thoughts thought are there to begin with because of something or things in the world including their own self.
  18. The thing or things in the world, and, or, self, go into this someone's mind from their eyes or ears, or mouth, or, skin: the senses, and, or, their self, and those things or thing become the subject of their thoughts and also emotion(s).
  19. This someone is thinking in their minds and the thoughts have the emotion firstly of not knowing.
  20. The thoughts and emotions on the subject happen for a while and after a while stop by believing something, a conclusion of all the thoughts.
  21. When this same someone meets a doctor the belief is thought by the doctor as being about a false reality or an impossible reality.
  22. The doctor knows about these thoughts from this same someone's speaking.
  23. The doctor does not agree with the thoughts of the conclusion.
  24. The doctor thinks those thoughts of the conclusion are a problem.
  25. The doctor would like to change the belief, but the patient won't or can't.
  26. The problem is named a delusion.
  27. "Persistent hallucinations" is the perception of things that psychiatric doctors think don't exist in reality or any known or possible to know reality.
  28. Hallucinations are usually experiences of things that from the senses don't exist from the physical word.
  29. Feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling, or tasting things that aren't there or anywhere.
  30. "Thought disorder": someone speaks: the words in the speaking doesn't arrive at the doctor in an order which means enough or something.
  31. The doctor thinks the same someone is thinking like they are speaking.
  32. If 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 is like the words in a spoken sentence, the number could be more or less than 10, the fact of consecutive is the order.
  33. Disorder is like the words are not consecutive.
  34. Or some of the numbers aren't included in the sentence.
  35. This is known as "disorganized speech or thought"
  36. Thinks or feels controlled and passive
  37. Persistent means that from the first time a doctor has found a symptom the amount of time if there is a next time or times after, is not a very brief time.
  38. All the possible known symptoms of the condition and, or, mental disorder and, or, disease known by doctors and professionals as sz are divided into three groups named:
  39. Psychotic: These symptoms are delusion, hallucination, disorganisation
  40. Negative: are less of or not having any of: thoughts, behaviors or emotions that someone who is healthy usually has. [58][68]
  41. Cognitive (or cognitive deficits): are problems with attention, memory, the concept of time, and with the ability to plan and organize.

F

  1. Doctors use the word insight to make the meaning of having intelligence and understanding
  2. The word insight means to have a true and real understanding of a problem or situation.
  3. For doctors, sz is about their jobs - employments where they earn money by people who are patients and things like science and research.
  4. People who doctors say have sz sometimes think they don't.
  5. Doctors describe these people as lacking insight.
  6. To lack something is to not have something.
  7. The words doctor use has meanings like: "The fact of penetrating with the eyes of the understanding", "deep", "the power or act of seeing into a situation".
  8. The whole idea is quite complicated.
  9. What doctors really expect from the idea of lacking insight is from at least since 1927, which is the year Dr. E. Minkowski described the idea of psychiatrists penetrating into the mind of patients for diagnosis.
  10. Dr. C. Jung (Jung is pronounced the same as young) had ideas sometime after 1909, which Dr. E. Bleuler described as "depth psychology".
  11. "Mental health literacy" (literacy being literature) could be very similar or the same as insight.
  12. The word insight means literally to see inside, which is in & sight, which is seeing.
  13. This is obviously not possible because the human eye is the organ of seeing.
  14. Situations where actually insight is really possible (which means the eye of the mind), by the definition of seeing inside, is mental visualization and dreams.
  15. Both Dr S Freud and Dr Jung inhaled the smoke of the drug tobacco.
  16. Dr Freud inhaled tobacco from about when he started as a doctor.
  17. Dr Freud's ideas were used by Dr Bleuler in his idea of the symptoms of sz.
  18. Dr Freud was probably a tobacco drug addict.
  19. Also Dr Freud used the drug cocaine before Dr Bleuler knew about him. Dr Jung maybe inhaled tobacco quite a few years after when he first became a doctor.
  20. Tobacco is a drug which is dangerous with addictive.
  21. Tobacco is part of the nightshade family of plants.
  22. Both Dr Freud and Dr Jung wrote about and researched dreams. They both thought thinking about dreams and the meaning of dreams was important.

G

  1. What other people do and people with sz do to help themselves and to stop themselves from having sz
  2. See the main article: Treatments and prevention of schizophrenia

H

  1. Things in life which make or maybe make sz
  2. See the main article: Risk factors and possible causes of schizophrenia
  3. Risk is if I or anyone should or shouldn't do something because of cause: decisions and choices.
  4. Cause is like this:
  5. 1 (s) → 0 (z)
  6. One is not the thing: not having sz.
  7. One is a value (like the $).
  8. Zero happens if the arrow happens.
  9. If the 1 and s split.
  10. Zero is s + z.
  11. Cause of sz is what the arrow (→) is.

I

  1. Society and culture
  2. See the main article: Schizophrenia in society and culture

20:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) @Fehufanga: I made improvements to the sentences after your criticisms: indicate the numbers for the relevant sentences which you think are a problem then I will proceed to make the necessary improvements. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simpul skitsofreeneea Please stop making overly long lists in your posts. Almost everything you listed is problematic and not proper English. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why hasn't this user been blocked yet? They clearly cannot edit constructively here. They attack and insult other editors (fascists, stupid). They refuse to accept help. They are still messing around with these pages. They need to be blocked and all of the pages reverted to before their edits or just trimmed to stubs. Trying to edit this mess into something readable is a waste of editors' time. We have been more than patient enough. --Gotanda (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the user for one month which gives us time to figure out what to do. fr33kman 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I reviewed Delusion while assessing the editor's unblock request, and the lede is unacceptable. I don't know whether the editor genuinely believes good FK score = simple article, but if that mentality persists then I don't see the editor contributing to Wikipedia for long. Chenzw  Talk  09:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made You Look and Earth are now good artricles...

Hello all, I just promoted the articles Made You Look, and Earth to the status of good artzicle. The artilces are easy to read, and good examples of what writing Simple English should be like. Thank you to all who contributed. Eptalon (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what happened, but it looks like Earth had always been a GA all this while! It was promoted in Aug 2009 (discussion). Talk:Earth claims that the article was demoted from GA, but I searched through all archives and even revision history of WP:DEMOTE, and couldn't find any demotion discussion for this article. Chenzw  Talk  01:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks to all who took part in my recent RfCU. I really feel we needed another active CU to take some of the pressure off of Eptalon who should receive a round of applause for his hard work!! Cheers! :) fr33kman 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! :) Contributor118,784 Let's talk 12:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense

See here: Beauty and the Beast (1991 movie)

This article includes the nonsensical text:

Peter Cullen as Beast, a Minotaur-like monster. The animators drew him with the snout bridge of a alligator, the back, beard, and head of an American bison, the lower lip of a anglerfish, the forehead of a asian elephant, the arms, claws, forelegs, and chest of a bear, the rump of a bighorn sheep, the feet and toes of a Black-backed jackal, the tongue of a black panther, the nose and skull of a bull, the neck of a California sea lion, the eardrums of a camel, the tonsils of a cheetah, the face and tail of a cow, the nostrils of a crocodile, the inner ears of a coyote, the eyelids and ears of a deer, the mandible of a dhole, the ear hair of a donkey, the chest of a german shepherd, the humped shoulders of a giraffe, the eyebrows of a gorilla, the throat and buck teeth of a hippo, the the penis of a horse, the back mane of a hyena, the muzzle of a Javan rhino, the jaws of a leopard, the voice and mane of a lion, the fur of a mammoth, the anus of a marmoset, the elbows of a meerkat, the eyes of a men, the upper lip of a monkey, the tail of a mule, the elbow hair of a polar bear, the foot of a raccoon, the teeth of a smilodon, the body of a tiger, the mouth of a the horns of a texas longhorn, the belly of a tiger, the tusks of a Wild boar, the hairy mane of a wildebeest, and the legs of a wolf.

2601:644:907E:A450:E1:CAC6:178F:6C6E (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove that when you see it. I might propose the page for protection if it happens a lot. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(New) Feature on Kartographer: Adding geopoints via QID

Since September 2022, it is possible to create geopoints using a QID. Many wiki contributors have asked for this feature, but it is not being used much. Therefore, we would like to remind you about it. More information can be found on the project page. If you have any comments, please let us know on the talk page. – Best regards, the team of Technical Wishes at Wikimedia Deutschland


Thereza Mengs (WMDE) 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical elements

I just got here, so sorry if I am starting a discussion that is obvious, but I didn't find anything in the archives. I was looking through different chemical elements and I was surprised at the current state. Some of them like samarium have almost nothing, and I just edited vanadium which has a lot of barely related technical information. Is there a priority on what should be done first? Can I just go ahead with all the elements and start adding (mostly attributed to English Wikipedia)? Reconrabbit (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: Yes! Any improvements to the articles would be welcome. Please note the following:
  • If you expand a stub article to the point where it is no longer a stub, you can remove the stub template. I think the one on Vanadium can be removed.
  • Be sure to write in the simple language that is required here. If you need any guidance on that, feel free to ask!
By the way, I noticed that you added the short description template to Vanadium. We don't use that template here, so there's no need to add it.
Welcome, and thanks for helping out! -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I did not notice the stub template on Vanadium and I wasn't sure about using short descrptions. Sometimes they are just missing from other language wiki pages and it becomes a habit. Reconrabbit (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are indexed on google

 
google results for Kamayama Shrine

I googled a shrine I am making a draft on to find sources, and it was linked in the search results User:Immanuelle/Kamayama Shrine. I don't think this should happen. It will need a really high up person to change the namespace settings to fix this. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The reason why this is is because we don't have a wgNamespaceRobotPolicies setting on our wiki. We should probably add this into https://noc.wikimedia.org/wiki.php?wiki=simplewiki per what enwiki have done.
wgNamespaceRobotPolicies: {
"2": "noindex,follow",
"3": "noindex,follow",
"118": "noindex,nofollow",
"119": "noindex,nofollow"
}
Doing this will proably require some phab task to be created. I will try and do it when I remember, unless someone else gets there first. --Ferien2 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article for review (Temple of Confucius)

I've been working on improving this article and intend to nominate it for GA. The main issue is the limited number of revisions (only two besides mine). Other than that, I believe it meets the GA criteria? I'm sharing it here so it can be reviewed by other editors. Open to addressing any concerns and making further improvements. Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can only have one open at a time, so you will have to close the Pakistan nomination to nominate this. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't nominated this for GA yet. I've just shared it here for review by other editors. Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox URL

Hi, I'm wanting to edit the website url in the infobox at Big Brother (British TV series)]] however the website url doesn't seem to be there interally (ie when i click edit),

Any idea where it is as I'm stumped ?, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review

On Wikipedia:Deletion review, I think the archived requests should go at the bottom, and it should be made clearer whether new requests go at the top or bottom of the page. Kk.urban (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also makes it more consistent with the RfD page.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree! fr33kman 21:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

School bus DYK

I believe we have a DYK on School Bus?

If so, we would need to put the hook on hold, as new information was added to the article which is uncited.

Thank you, Tsugaru let's talk! :) 03:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the hook info itself still sourced/ fr33kman 08:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Tsugaru let's talk! :) 22:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents of violence against women?

Hello, I think the content of the category is problematic:

  • We do have a few specific entries about "violence against women" (gang rapes, attacks on single women)
  • We do have one or two "abductions" - while these are certainly a form of violence, I wouldn't see an abduction as a form of "violence against women".
  • We do have one or two "armed conflicts", genocides or wars. While such violence happens in these situations, it rarely is the main form of violence.

In short, we should take a look at the articles in the category, and ask ourselves, for each article: Does it describe a "typical" form of violence against women? - If it doesn't, the category should probably be removed. What do others think? Eptalon (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is sensible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categorisation requires judgement. Rathfelder (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing boxes

Can someone please collapse the navboxes on Kansas City, Missouri? I'm not sure how, but they take up way too much space. Kk.urban (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kk.urban   Done — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two are still not collapsed. But that might be okay. Kk.urban (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA and VGA criteria change

Currently, the GA and VGA criteria both have this as one of the requirements:

The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).

I do not think that this is a good requirement. I think a better requirement would be this, which I have simplified from the English Wikipedia:

The article should be stable. It should not have many recent big changes or any current change wars.

I think that my proposed new requirement follows the spirit of the old one, and is better than it. For example, if an article had a couple of big content edits six months ago, and has not needed any minor changes since, it would be disqualified under the current criteria. However, it would be accepted under the new criteria, since those are not recent big changes. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur :) fr33kman 16:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I go with this too. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of RfD quick deletions

Occasionally I see articles that are listed on WP:RFD quickly deleted before the RFD period is over, or a user tagging the article with a QD template before. I don't really like this as there is no harm in leaving an RfD open for a while, articles deleted under a QD criteria cannot be deleted again under G4. Thoughts? — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 22:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it usually depends on the page. If an article meets QD criteria like being advertisement/attack etc, I think we should just QD those. If there is room for discussion or if the deletion is in any way controversial, we can go with RFD. BRP ever 05:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I have done out of RfD deletions before. I'm referring to the discussions where it wouldn't do much harm to let the discussion sit for a while (contested notability, A4 doesn't apply to the subject, etc). — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think those cases can stay, unless it easily meets the QD criteria and no discussion is required BRP ever 12:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just copy what I have written before about this: Let's say an article of a non-notable person has been created. It is first deleted for promotion, then on the second attempt, its promotional tone is removed, but there is no claim of importance/notability. On the third attempt, neither of these issues apply anymore, so the article is no longer eligible for deletion through the quick methods and we must go through a full RfD. While quick deletion should always be used for spammy articles first, some spammers are so persistent that it is actually a better use of time to discuss the article for a week, rather than trying to use quick deletion criteria when it does not apply, because G4 gives us a reason for deletion pretty much every time.
Adding to that, if an article is nominated for deletion for notability issues, leaving the RfD open the full week lets us get a consensus the subject isn't notable rather than closing it early to say it doesn't claim it in this revision of the article. That being said, attack pages should definitely be deleted without an RfD needed, and there are others like G1-5/12, A1/2/5/6 where we should probably close early. All in all, I would much prefer it if RfDs weren't acted upon early apart from in these clear cases, but I'm not sure how we would get this across in a policy or guideline if there was the consensus that the community didn't want this. --Ferien (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien I agree with your assessment. Since I think A4 and G11 are going to be the most disputable criteria, how about adding "this criteria should not be used for pages that are currently discussed on WP:RfD" to their description, similar to WP:QD#C1's description? — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. --Ferien (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTA/GRP targeting pages

Because pages like Archie Moore are being vandalised, can we protect this page and other pages being vandalised by this LTA? I think it would be a good idea to protect them to stop further vandalism. Thank you. Kashingggz (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, especially the page Archie Moore. It is being consistently vandalized for the past few days. – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 10:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page, but occasionally other pages are left unprotected on purpose. Please place semi-protection requests on AN so administrators can review them there. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First article

Hello everyone. I have written my first article, Nestor Makhno. As it is my first, could somebody check my work? Is it too long? Is it too complex? What more should I do to improve it for Simple Wikipedia? Thank you. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have an in-depth look, but my first comments: Sentences are not too long and easy to understand. Sectioning looks good. Given that you cited works below, I don't think you need that many references which tell us what page if what book the statement is from. Image use looks good. In other words: welcome new editor Eptalon (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome! I could combine some of the references to give larger page ranges? So instead of citing pages for each sentence, I could cite a page range at the end of each paragraph. I just want to make sure I'm citing sources well. Grnrchst (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do what you feel should be done. Many of our articles just cite books, or journal articles: article in journal, pages 20-40, and then the 20-40 is the whole article. If it's bad, it can always be improved on later. Eptalon (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Grnrchst! Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We dont expect perfection. Sentences are nice and short. Vocabulary seems quite simple. I agree if you are referring to one authoritative book you dont need to link every event to a different page.
Welcome! Rathfelder (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder; @Eptalon: Ok thanks for the advice! For now, I have combined the citations. So now there is only one or two for each paragraph. The page ranges are larger but still point to specific parts of each book. I hope this simplifies things a bit. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes it does. Congrats for the article. Eptalon (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to use chapter numbers instead. I think this makes it more simple for the reader. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst I just saw the article and I am saying a Quality Barnster for you. Kudos and keep going. Mastashat (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2024!

Hello, Simple English Wikipedia community! Happy New Year! As we say goodbye to the past, let's welcome the year of 2024 with open hearts. May it bring growth, accomplishments, and fulfillment. Wishing you and yours health and happiness in the new year. Meikutto (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well, Meikutto! Wishing you a wonderful year ahead filled with joy and success. Cheers to a great year on Simple English Wikipedia! – Cyber.Eyes2005Talk 10:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, dear Simple English Wikipedia contributors! — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, you all! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year everyone :) dotdotcomma (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy (late) new year :).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hear ye, hear ye! Signed, IP-from-NordicSubcontinentThingy 2001:2020:307:DD8B:7149:62B:9EF6:17B6 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 😜 41.114.169.99 (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use Wikidata in Wikimedia sibling projects? Tell us about your experiences

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English.

Hello, the Wikidata for Wikimedia Projects team at Wikimedia Deutschland would like to hear about your experiences using Wikidata in the sibling projects. If you are interested in sharing your opinion and insights, please consider signing up for an interview with us in this Registration form.
Currently, we are only able to conduct interviews in English.

The front page of the form has more details about what the conversation will be like, including how we would compensate you for your time.

For more information, visit our project issue page where you can also share your experiences in written form, without an interview.
We look forward to speaking with you, Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I write articles about plant and animal species, so I update Wikidata and make sure there's a taxon bar at the bottom of each article. I've written them for simple.wiki, en.wiki and es.wiki. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24: Note that it invites people to share their experiences on the project page, not here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Palace of Fine Arts", in many countries

Please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Fine_Arts, it is about Palace of Fine Arts (United States).--Our article is for now about Palace of Fine Arts (Mexico).--Maybe Palace of Fine Arts should be a disambig page.--Spanish-wiki has a disambig page, es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palacio_de_Bellas_Artes. 2001:2020:307:DD8B:7149:62B:9EF6:17B6 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:307:DD8B:7149:62B:9EF6:17B6 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be a disambig page as the first thing that pops up on a Google search is the one in San Fransico. fr33kman 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then please move article to Palace of Fine Arts (Mexico). That is a good first step.--(Spanish-wiki lists only one of those places in Mexico.) 2001:2020:307:DD8B:A0F0:CA75:B4DD:4D7D (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Palace of Fine Arts (Mexico). fr33kman 18:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanism

Gyanism is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of nurturing the mind, body, and soul. It is based on the idea that we can achieve superhuman living by focusing on seven key pillars that form the foundation of a future superhuman existence. These pillars include nourishing the body with quality food, shaping reality with quality thoughts, defining character with quality deeds, enhancing well-being with quality living, and more. By following these principles, we can cultivate a positive mindset, forge stronger relationships, and instill a profound sense of purpose in our lives. Gyanism is a powerful tool for anyone who wants to live a more fulfilling and meaningful life. Gyanism (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting; if you think you can write an article that also cites reliabled third-party sources, then please do. This page is a general discussion page of issues related to this project. Eptalon (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity

Ive been working on Category:Complex pages. There are quite a lot of scientific and computing articles there and I'd like to know how people think we should deal with them. Take Einstein field equations as an example. I have had a go at improving it, but the topic is inherently complex and difficult. I'm inclined to think we should remove the complexity marker if we think it is as simple as it can be, even if it is still quite difficult. What do other people think? Another example: Enterprise Java Beans. I dont understand this -though I have got a database qualification. Is it as simple as it could be? I think the complexity is mostly in the topic, not in the language used.

NB I am not a scientist, and maybe scientists would do a better job - but scientists do tend to use difficult words. Rathfelder (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can simplify the Enterprise Java beans a lot more. One category of bean is still missing, I will look at it this evening. As to anything mathsy: try explaining in simple words, leave out anything but the most basic formulas. Eptalon (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten the Java Enterprise Beans. Added a practical example too.. Eptalon (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out for Wikipedia Deletion reviews

What happens after requesting for undeletion and the deleting admin clearly indicates the page can't be reviewed maybe by not responding to the posing questions in the review. Is there any time to wait before the page is recreated. Best, Mastashat (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_154&oldid=9310475"