Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages —    change

WikiProject

Hi, I made a WikiProject called WikiProject Games. You can join if you want! Thetree284 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The WikiProject has been renamed from Gaming to Games because I want to include board games too. Thetree284 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The new pages in this WikiProject are: Sorry! (game) and Trouble (board game). Thetree284 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

And the reason, I removed Taitheguy87 from the members list is because he is a blocked user. Thetree284 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thetree284: Maybe it's better to discuss the project on its talk page, not here 🙂 ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

But, this topic will get archived by a bot after no replies in this topic for a certain amount of time. Thetree284 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I want to keep the comment because I like this topic. Thetree284 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Please, stop, it's been almost a month since you first posted this. There are many other things to be discussed on Simple Talk. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. Why should your post stay here forever? Other posts get archived, so will yours, because we are all the same here. You are not the only one who started a WikiProject. Thank you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Because I just like this topic. Thetree284 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You are a very kind person and I really appreciate you as an editor, but it doesn't matter. You are not the only one here, I like many other topics, but I let them go, like everybody else. This isn't a social media. This is my last comment under this specific thread. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I know it is not a social media, but I don't want this comment to get archived by a bot. Thetree284 (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thetree284 (Simple talk stalker?) Hi. Just like everything else in Simple talk, your post will eventually be archived after some time. Users don't get any special treatment just because they like the topic they are writing about. Like Dream Indigo said, why should everybody else's comments go while yours stays forever? The Simple talk runs this way, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. This is the first and last time I will be responding under this header. Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 19:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Wait, it will be archived soon? And I know most comments will be archived by a certain amount of time. Thetree284 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thetree284: Please stop making comments here just to keep the section on the page. If you continue doing that, one of two things might happen: either you will be blocked from editing this page, or the section might get archived manually. Make comments only if you have something to contribute to the discussion. Thanks.

Everyone else: please stop responding to Thetree284's unconstructive posts. That will only keep the section around longer, with no constructive discussion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay fine, I will stop and this comment will be archived by a bot. Thetree284 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Automatic archiving for WP:RFCU

Hello all, the requests at WP:RFCU usually get handled fairly quickly. I would therefore propose we set up the bot to also archive them automatically; proposed parameters: 10d old, min 2 threads left. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Related previous discussion can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Archiving. MathXplore (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering how RfCU works, I would want to see the bot be tested in a RfCU replica before firmly saying yay or nay.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Pure Evil offered a reasonable point at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Archiving 2. I feel like it is probably best for CUs to manually review each one prior to it going to the archived, as responses can often go unanswered - and I appreciate sometimes this is on purpose. --Ferien (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Idk, I'm 50:50 on this one. It'd be nice to have them auto archived due to workload issues but understand the issues of wanting to manually close them out. I'd lean towards a bot if it could be made to work. fr33kman 18:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

i think the bot handling the other page archiving could be made to work. It would archive discussions that haven't Bern touched in .. days, leaving at least ... Items on the page? Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it to the people with the checkuser right to decide, but I have a question. Is there an amount of time an unaddressed request can be left, after which either it is considered stale or the checkusers wouldn't do anything with it? I would let that be the number of days old to use for archiving. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-checkuser observation) @Auntof6: m:CheckUser_policy#CheckUser_status says information is only stored for a short period (currently 90 days), so I think this is the time limit. MathXplore (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As to the data availability: requests need to be made fairly quickly, information that is older than about three months is deleted. As you requests: I would guess s bot could (technically) handle archiving old requests.... Eptalon (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the thread.some requests get done very quickly and gets no additional input. Others, however, can seem to be stale for days or weeks and become active again. If say if a thread has been stale for 7 to 14 days then gets another sock added to the listing. However, as a reporting user could easily point to the prior listing from the archive I'm in favour of a bot. fr33kman 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I found C:User:SpBot/How to make SpBot archive your wiki that looks like it could help with this. A note on C:Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, which the bot archives, says that it archives 1) any section tagged as resolved and 2) any section whose most recent comment is older than 90 days. Of course, maybe our usual archiving bot can do the same thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, a bot could do it well. We could always have a trial run and see if it can be made to work well. fr33kman 20:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon, @Auntof6 @FusionSub and @Fr33kman; I have asked operator of SpBot to operate the bot here. I think this one will make RFP (rollback and patroller), DRV, PGA, PVGA and RFCU much efficient and organised. The templates have already been imported and the bot is currently pending approval.-- BRP ^ever 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Good fr33kman 17:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a question

Here's a weird question, for example, if an article on Simple English Wikipedia is created with good grammar, formatting, and spelling, but it's much shorter than the English Wikipedia article, how can it still become a good article or a very good article? Bakhos Let's talk! 04:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are minimal length requirements, bit they are fluffy. VGAs need to be comprehensive, which likely means they end up at a certain length. Why don't you nominate the article when you think it is ready? The people active at reviewing will give ideas as to how to improve it. Eptalon (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010: A little late, but the article can be a Good Article when it covers the most important parts of the subject, which means it can sometimes be much shorter than the enwiki version. Very Good Articles have to cover all of the important parts of the subject, so it would usually have to be a similar length to the enwiki version. Hope this helps! QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If it covers all aspects of the topic than despite not being too lengthy, it can be a GA. It just needs to be reasonably complete as an article without lacking major significant details. BRP ^ever 11:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Chemistry ("It is a solid.")

It is not enough, for an encyclopedia to say, that a compound, is "a solid"; In many cases it should be okay to indicate something like,
"It is a solid at room temperature at atmospheric-pressure at sea level, and in many other situations".

There should be consensus as to one or more standard phrases et cetera, about what to say about those compounds. Thoughts?

For now, i don't think it is helpful to use the wiki-article Standard temperature and pressure - to explain (or link), to explain 'a solid at room-temperature at sea-level (pressure)'.

(I recently tried to fix an article, by saying "sea-level" - but i have not fixed the 'missing part about pressure'. See,

This compound (and many other) is a ... solid]] at (so-called) standard temperature and pressure.) 2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"It is often found as a solid, in nature."--This is an example of something, that is not as bad as saying "It is a solid."--I would not rule out (myself) using that ('nature phrase') as a 'quick fix', if an article says 'It is a solid.' 2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would assume that without further qualifications, this means under standard conditions (room temperature, standard pressure, sea level)? - So I will continue hugging my block of Helium (...which melts at 0.95 Kelvin..).. Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

"It is a ... solid at 15 °C at standard atmosphere, and in (many) other situations."--The word 'situation', is a dumbed-down translation of 'condition'.

(And for those of you who are thinking, "But isn't Helium" a gas? Yeah,

it is a gas at 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit) at standard atmosphere (and in many other 'situations'). 2001:2020:355:9511:AC4A:460E:8E48:8867 (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408 /2001:2020:355:9511:AC4A:460E:8E48:8867 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Helium is usually a gas..? and link the usually to Standard temperature and pressure. Helium is an extreme example, it melts at 0.95 K (-272 °C) and boils at 4.2 K (-269 °C). Under normal pressure, at absolute zero (0 K), it will be liquid. So, hugging my block of Helium is probably impossible. Eptalon (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Helium is often a gas..?--In regard to "Under normal pressure, at absolute zero (0 K)", that does not sound like any liquid; However, it does sound troublesome, as in big-problem. 2001:2020:335:AE4B:6D0F:C33A:F723:90CC (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408

I am not a chemist, but Hydrogen melts at 14 K (-259 C) and boils at 21 K (-251 C). I am not a chemist, but likely there are some elements that don't have a solid form... Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, please 'advise me' in regard to which of the (cirka) room-temperatures, which is the most interesting for chemistry articles (on Simple-wiki).--Zero degrees Celsius i would not consider room-temperature. So, in most cases 'i will likely stick with' 15 degrees or 25 degrees or 20 degrees Celsius, wherever the arguments will lead us.--(Also, 15 degrees or 25 degrees or 20 degrees Celsius - one of these should maybe have an article, so that one can link "Compound x is a gas at about room-temperature/cirka room-temperature" ... ).

Anyway, Neon is now "an odorless and tasteless gas (at 15 degrees Celsius at a standard pressure)".--Maybe that text will be good enough for c. one week. 2001:2020:313:AAD9:AC3C:461:ABFB:5507 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408

Yes, that's definitely ok. I think IUPAC defines room temperature as 25 degrees centigrade/Celsius, but the physicists say it's 15 degrees. Eptalon (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone creates articles with '25 degrees Celsius' or '20 degrees Celsius', then leave that alone (for the longest time)!--Some times it is okay to deal with nitty gritty, say a year after people have diminished their article-creation output.--Another thing: Room-temperature (arguably) gets most attention when we are heating rooms, or when we are using aircondition; Electric fans have little impact on the average temperature in a room; North-Europeans might feel a stronger 'economical connection' with the 15 degree Celsius idea. People from near equator might care less about the 15 degree idea.--If this post is helpful to anyone, then fine. 2001:2020:8347:71BB:904B:C529:B877:7D76 (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:333:C6E5:83A:C472:2680:1408

I forgot to say that it is unlikely that anyone will feel insulted, if "15 degrees Celsius", gets changed to a shorter form (that has c. 4 characters).--I use the long forms, just to finish text without extra hassle.)--If this post makes sense to many, then fine. 2001:2020:8347:71BB:904B:C529:B877:7D76 (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

'Wikidata item' link is moving, finally.

Hello everyone, I previously wrote on the 27th September to advise that the Wikidata item sitelink will change places in the sidebar menu, moving from the General section into the In Other Projects section. The scheduled rollout date of 04.10.2024 was delayed due to a necessary request for Mobile/MinervaNeue skin. I am happy to inform that the global rollout can now proceed and will occur later today, 22.10.2024 at 15:00 UTC-2. Please let us know if you notice any problems or bugs after this change. There should be no need for null-edits or purging cache for the changes to occur. Kind regards, -Danny Benjafield (WMDE) 11:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello there! I was wondering if I was allowed to bring existing userboxes from enwikipedia to here? for example, if I wanted to add Template:User Pantheist (a userbox that is only on the en wikipedia) to my profile on simple, could I simply copy the source code from the en wiki page? Or must I create my own original pantheist userbox with its own original source code/text? I apologize if this isn't the right place for questions of this nature. Gumboot! 🌵 ^(talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gumboot Soup: Yes, you can copy it. Please be sure to:

• Categorize it in a category we have here, either Category:Userbox templates or a subcat of it. We don't have the same categories as enwiki, so the category/ies it's in there might not exist here.
• Bring over the doc page and functional subpages, if any. You do not have to bring over sandbox or testcases pages unless they are needed.

Thanks! If you would like the template imported for you, you can ask for that on WP:AN. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it okay to start a sentence with a conjunction like "so", "and", or "but"?

An example is "Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. So migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now." (Ancient Australia)

That is better for simplicity. 2620:6E:6000:2900:E47B:272A:94C2:AE9D (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Helloǃ The Simple Wiki doesn't really use conjunctions at the start of a sentence. In your example,"Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. So migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now", it would be "Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. Migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now." Thanks, Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 13:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

But without the conjunction, people might not realize that the first sentence is the cause of the second. 2620:6E:6000:2900:E47B:272A:94C2:AE9D (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You also could switch it around so it says, "Migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now. This is because sea levels were lower because there was more ice." Thanks, Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 13:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Or just use "therefore" instead of "so": "Sea levels were lower because more water was in the form of ice. Therefore, migration from Asia to Australia was easier than it is now." -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No archival any more?

Hello, it looks like there is no more bot archiving, anyone has details? Eptalon (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? I'll test 873Bot, is there any specific bots that are confirmed to not be archiving now? Fu2ionSub (Talk) 08:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

this is set to archive threads that are older than 10 days, so I would expect some of these here to disappear.. Eptalon (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Bot873 does seem to still be archiving talk pages, since it archived my one this morning. Looks to be a Simple Talk specific issue. Is there any other pages archived by Bot873 that seem to be having this issue?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this one, and the admin notice board (which has a longer rétention time of 14 days) Eptalon (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't know if it is a settings issuew, or something else change: The archival bot seems to run, but it no longer archives these pages (Simple Talk/Admin Noticeboard, possibly: Talk:Main page, but there's very little traffic there.

So we need to look into getting archival for these pages running again.

Comments? Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It might (suddenly) be having problems with pages in the Wikipedia namespace (although not confident as nore data is needed past two pages).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/Bot873, the only pages in Wikipedia namespace that it edits are indeed ST, AN and Change filter mistakes where there are fewer requests. It was archiving almost daily but seemingly stopped on 18 October. But as a first point-of-call, we should ask Operator873. He will probably be able to realise the problem quicker than we can not knowing what's going on behind the scenes! --Ferien (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably should've been done first lol.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 21:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Investigating... Operator873 ^connect 00:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon @Ferien -- seems the issue was the archive process was hung in toolforge. I've nudged it. It should run at 0400UTC as normal. Operator873 ^connect 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and manually executed the run to verify it was working. It does. Problem solved. Operator873 ^connect 00:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Operator873: Not really, I again see contributions 14 days old, the limit is set to 10 days? Eptalon (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it got stuck again.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon The bot ran this morning. See the template at the top of the page for when the bot is set. Operator873 ^connect 01:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Operator873 That wouldn't explain the topics over 10 days old here, despite the config being set to archive topics over 10 days old.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Operator873 The bot has not archived anything since 1 November. 131.109.227.10 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

French regions

A lot of the articles about French communes use the old Regions of France from before 2016. Most of these articles are very short. For the pages I'm talking about, see:

• Search results for "in the region Aquitaine" --> should be changed to Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Search results for "in the region Basse-Normandie" --> should be changed to Normandie or Normandy (not sure which)
• Search results for "in the region Languedoc-Roussillon" --> should be changed to Occitanie
• Search results for "in the region Midi-Pyrénées" --> should be changed to Occitanie
• Search results for "in the region Nord-Pas-de-Calais" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France
• Search results for "in the region Picardie" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France

• Search results for "in the Aquitaine region" --> should be changed to Nouvelle-Aquitaine
• Search results for "in the Basse-Normandie region" --> should be changed to Normandie or Normandy (not sure which)
• Search results for "in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France
• Search results for "in the Picardie region" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France
• Search results for "in the Picardy region" --> should be changed to Hauts-de-France

Combined, these add up to 2889 articles.

I've noticed that most of them say "in the region X in the Y department". The departments are smaller than regions so I wonder if the departments should come first. A possible argument against that is that the regions are larger and therefore more recognizable.

Another question is whether these should say "in the region X" or "in the X region", or if both are acceptable and they should be left alone.

Are these edits that administrators could make, using AutoWikiBrowser? PRicoNMI (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, the departments didn't change, it was just that 2-3 of the old regions were combined into a new one. Eptalon (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, therefore I am hoping that an admin could use AutoWikiBrowser to change the regions in all these articles. The other questions are secondary, but they could be handled at the same time. PRicoNMI (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

New articles

Administrators, Why Articles doesn't connect to translation Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to click on 'Add translation', and add add at one... Eptalon (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It says "This page is not available in other languages." Can you help me to 'Add translation' Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Any other New Changes Patrollers noticing this?

Anybody else noticing pages are being "removed" from Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension more than normal, and any subsequent edits the page also can result in the page being "removed" from the category, even if it is just a simple grammar fix?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@FusionSub the category on en wiki will be deleted. Whatever template/module used to populate it is no longer used, so whenever an edit is made to any page in that category, it will be purged and removed from the category. They say there's a "job queue" that will eventually purge all pages and empty out the category. It's possible a similar change was made to a template/module here. Depextual (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

actually, you need to make an edit. Simply purging a page does not work. Depextual (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense if it only happened once, but it happens whenever the page is edited (even after it was previously edited (which with the reasoning you provided shouldn't happen)).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is still occurring after 2 weeks, does anybody have any ideas of what is causing this cycle of contradictions?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

More participation needed

Hi, there are several areas of the project that needs more participation from users and admins. I am going to list them here so anyone interested can add these page to the watchlist which is the easiest way to be updated on those areas. If I am missing any areas, please feel free to list them so I will add it to my watchlist as well.

• Wikipedia:Proposed good articles -- needs more overall participation
• Wikipedia:Deletion review -- Can we set better archival system for this page?
• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions -- A request is stuck for more than a month with 22 votes with the minimum requirement being 25.

Thanks,--BRP ^ever 12:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like WP:DRV really needs a rework in general. Maybe make it more similar to WP:RfD in some ways?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think if we set it up in a way where the archival is automatic or semi-automatic everything will be resolved. Another RFD like process is a lot of extra maintenance work for community when we already have our hands full.--BRP ^ever 11:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just when I was looking for something to do. Thanks, BRP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Final Reminder: Join us in Making Wiki Loves Ramadan Success

Dear all,

We’re thrilled to announce the Wiki Loves Ramadan event, a global initiative to celebrate Ramadan by enhancing Wikipedia and its sister projects with valuable content related to this special time of year. As we organize this event globally, we need your valuable input to make it a memorable experience for the community.

Last Call to Participate in Our Survey: To ensure that Wiki Loves Ramadan is inclusive and impactful, we kindly request you to complete our community engagement survey. Your feedback will shape the event’s focus and guide our organizing strategies to better meet community needs.

• Survey Link: Complete the Survey
• Deadline: November 10, 2024

Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts. Your input will truly make a difference!

Volunteer Opportunity: Join the Wiki Loves Ramadan Team! We’re seeking dedicated volunteers for key team roles essential to the success of this initiative. If you’re interested in volunteer roles, we invite you to apply.

• Application Link: Apply Here
• Application Deadline: October 31, 2024

Explore Open Positions: For a detailed list of roles and their responsibilities, please refer to the position descriptions here: Position Descriptions

Thank you for being part of this journey. We look forward to working together to make Wiki Loves Ramadan a success!

Warm regards,
The Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team 05:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Technical issue

An error is in effect at COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. When one clicks the "Languages" button, it says, "This page is not available in other languages"; however, the page is actually available in standard English: En:COVID-19 pandemic in British Columbia. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I just linked it in Wikidata. Did that fix the problem? -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it did. 162.156.70.174 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Those links don't show up automatically. You have to make the connection in Wikidata. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Interface admin rights

Hi everyone, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators about whether we should grant interface admin to non-admins or not. Please offer any comments and questions you have on that page. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Blacklist proposal

Hello. Recently I noticed that the condition of some sources on simplewiki is very bad. There are instagram as a source, or even quora and reddit as historical sources (!). Some of the pseudo-sources I found are listed on User:BZPN/BlockedDomains.json. All sources on my list have been removed from the articles and replaced with an appropriate template where necessary. Moreover, I also suggest blocking medium.com and buzzfeed.com, as these are sources created without any verification by users and are completely unreliable. If anyone is against blacklisting these sources, please let me know. Regards, BZPN (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would not blacklist Instagram, because according to en:WP:INSTAGRAM, sometimes it can be used as a primary source (for example for a celebrity's birthdate). ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo, Instagram as a source is disrespectful to the reader - everyone can write whatever they want there, and the reader doesn't know whether it's true. Moreover, on enwiki, content is controlled differently - there, pseudo-sources or spamlinks will be spotted immediately by active editors, while here, most likely, no one will notice them. Recently, I found and removed, for example, text (with emoji) copied from an Instagram post in an article (btw, it's a copyvio), lots of spamlinks to Instagram profiles, or Instagram as the only source. Instagram should absolutely not be used in such a situation, and blocking it will allow us to protect ourselves from spam, etc. I cannot understand how Instagram can be considered any source in an encyclopedia that reaches millions of people... After all, literally anyone can create an account there and write whatever they want. Moreover, enwiki rules do not strictly apply here and should be interpreted in terms of the simplewiki situation :). BZPN (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: I agree with many of the things you said, however (literally anyone can create an account there and write whatever they want) there is a huge difference from a random, unreliable fanpage and the official, verified profile of someone. If Lady Example says she's Christian on her official account, why should I not believe her? If Example Singer says that today it's his birthday, why would he lie about that? And if he lied there, he will lie in interviews as well. Personally, I believe their own Instagram posts more than any interview, which could contain a mistake, be a misinterpretation or even be slightly edited. Also, I don't see how it is disrespectful to our readers, if and only if used correctly, according to that guideline. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo, let's assume you're right. If Instagram is a primary source, then there must be a secondary source. So why not just provide the secondary source? Wouldn't someone so famous that they have a verified social media profile even get an interview in a large and well-known newspaper (and such rarely make mistakes in content)? I'll say it again: simplewiki won't be able to pick when Instagram is good and when it's not; there will be more spam than real sources, and editors won't be able to handle it. BZPN (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have Instagram, but I think that you don't have to be so much famous to get your account to be verified, in fact most people with a verified profile don't make it to Wikipedia because they don't meet the notability guidelines. Not every work is going to cite their birthdate (because it's usually something boring and most magazine/newspaper readers don't care about that, but they either prefer to read about important events or trivial gossip). To sum it: a secondary source doesn't always exists. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree with me that it is better not to provide information at all than to provide it based on very weak sources? BZPN (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, because I don't believe Instagram to be a weak source (again, only when used according to that guideline). I do agree about blocking all the other domains you listed though (except maybe TikTok, but I need more time to think about it, so for now I am neutral about TikTok). ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, with "Tik Tok" I mean "Un-exceptional claim about oneself from the official, verified Tik Tok profile", never "a good source about other people or events". ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I have no idea what TikTok could be the source of... it would seem like a joke. If it's to confirm the number of followers - there are definitely better quality websites with statistics. BZPN (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

What Dreamy said. We shouldn't blacklist Instagram even though it's not suitable as a source on anything but itself. But if the article mentions an Instagram post, we want to be able to cite and link to that specific post. For example, I wouldn't use an episode of the Simpsons as a source on American history, but if the article's popular culture section mentions an episode of the Simpsons, we want to be able to properly credit that episode as a source for its own content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: It's like you read my mind, but explained it so much better! I also want to add what Fehufanga said on the admin's noticeboard (Special:Diff/9861193) Blacklisting is an extreme measure […] Additionally, the spam blacklist applies to all namespaces. I can see some uses of having these links in discussion pages. Also, some people have userboxes that link to their Instagram profile or whatever social media on their userpage. There are many reasons not to blacklist Instagram. After learning what Fehufanga said (that the blacklist applies to all namespaces), I am also against blacklisting most other websites. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I do not recommend linking your Wikipedia identity to any other identity you may have. It's in my top three Wikipedia if-I-could-do-it-overs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: That's true, there are some weird vandals (and even readers and editors) out there that might dox you or stalk you. I know it's out of topic, but I feel like it's always good to remember anyone who's reading to be careful, especially when younger. Not only safety is very important, but it's also less future work for the oversighters. Thanks Darkfrog24 for the useful reminder! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 00:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree with that, I'd say the better solution would be to set up a filter to limit it so only autoconfirmed people can add that to reduce excessive abuse.--BRP ^ever 14:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@BRPever: That's a great alternative! I like your idea of a filter. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A filter is a much better idea. Blacklisting tiktok or instagram is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, there's valid reason to use Instagram and TikTok links, just because they are unreliable doesn't mean they are always unusable (be it in an article or in a discussion). I can see Instagram and TikTok links being used in discussions. I can write a test filter if needed. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fehufanga, I suggested this a few hours ago on AN ;). BZPN (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you report a user whose username is promotional or names a business?

I am seeing edits on this wiki from a user called User:Times Daily. Times Daily is a newspaper published in Florence, Alabama, and I am wondering if the use of this username, would have any issues, given that (maybe unintentionally) it is advertising a business. If it is the case, then can someone tell me how to report it and who to report it to, please? Thanks. DaneGeld (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@DaneGeld You can report at WP:VIP. Thank you! Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw I don't think this user is related to that newspaper as none of what they've been creating/editing is America related,

I'd prefer the user be given a chance to rename first however given the constant issues with them thus far I honestly don't know if it's worth giving them that option when they'll probably be blocked per CIR in a weeks time anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I'm pretty sure the user behind Times Daily blew up that account and made a new one, is that legitimate? Aster🪻 ^{talk edits} 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking yes it's legitimate providing they never edit under TD again but if they've already got a new account then I would support hard blocking purely because of the username –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not a Business entity, and i didn't knew of it's existence till now, when you tagged me. Times Daily (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that. Would you be OK with changing your username please? It would be helpful if you could. You don't have to lose the work you have done. You can ask the stewards to change it here. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

New WikiProject

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have just created WikiProject Reliable Sources and I invite everyone to join it. Have a nice day/night :). BZPN (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Two new good articles..

Hello, I have promoted Kenya Grace and Terry Fox to the status of Good Article. Thank you for all who contributed, good work. Eptalon (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Congrats.--BRP ^ever 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon can you also close the discussions at WP:PGA. BRP ^ever 10:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I did close (and archive) the two discussions affected.. Eptalon (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

New Article

I have Google Wallet pages but not connected wikidata can you connect me please Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done connected the page to wikidata.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Amsterdam anti-Jewish riot

This article is a very bad WP:POV fork of en:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (including the name). It contains multiple omissions and non-neutral sentences, for example, The rioters and their [[Left-wing fascism|left-wing]] [[Horseshoe Theory|backers]]. Its creator, @Steven1991, was recently indefinitely blocked in English Wikipedia due to similar concerns. Can something be done to fix it and to tell the creator that it is not OK? stjn 22:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The name seems good. Depextual (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The “rioters” classification was quoted directly from the reliable sources being cited. Large-scale violence was involved in the incident, so I do not see there is a problem with the use of “rioters” to refer to the individuals shown or proven to have been involved in the incident. I do not see there are any omissions either when the description of the events is based on the reliable sources being cited, unless you believe that those sources are somehow unreliable, which I would like to hear any reasons or analyses.Steven1991 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The omissions are glaring when you compare the article to English one. The note 6 is also quoting IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism to make a point of accusing ‘left-wing fascist’ ‘horseshoe theory’ backers of antisemitism. It is clear that you have an agenda and the start of your editing is exactly when you were indefinitely blocked in English Wikipedia for disruptive editing in Israel-Palestine related topics. stjn 22:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what omissions you are referring to. It is important to assume good faith rather than cast aspersions which may constitute personal attacks. Also, the contested wording has been removed and extra verifiable sources have been added to support the classification of the violence involved in the event. If you disagree with any part of the content, feel free to lay out the suggestions on the relevant Talk page, or add sources you consider as appropriate. I would appreciate if it can be done. Steven1991 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Omissions are of reports about anti-Arab racism and behaviour of Israeli fans prior to the match, as reported per enWP by NBC News, Times of Israel, CNN and BBC.

It is not a ‘personal attack’ to point out your prior block for I-P editing in English Wikipedia, see WP:1STRIKE. stjn 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing them out. I will add those information to the article. Steven1991 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As said, it would be easier to follow if you can lay out all the suggestions on the Talk page of the article, or provide any other sources you consider as appropriate for inclusion in the article’s content. Steven1991 (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello StevenJ1991. Sorry to say so, but at the base, this is likely just rioting at a football game, whhere one of the clubs happened to be Israeli.Rioting at a football game is inacceptable, no matter who played. To keep the balance, you could likely add that Mulin association also condemned the attacks, see the EnWP article. But hoenstly, in my opinion: this is rioting at a footall match, likely little else. Eptalon (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind suggestion. I will do it in a moment. Steven1991 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing, it is a clear POV violation, including the title. There is a reason why the english wiki article is WAY more neutral. It needs to be moved immediately. Mason7512 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The “anti-Jewish” and “riot” classifications were supported by reliable news sources and condemnation statements by multiple government officials. It is about verifiability rather than whether the classifications are really true from your standpoint. One cannot allege something as a “POV violation” simply on the basis of the disagreement. Steven1991 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A selection of sources that claim the events were anti-semetic does not confirm the motivations of the riots. I could easily provide numerous sources stating otherwise. This is a very strongly worded, heavy-handed title which needs more evidence to be justified; it cannot be thrown around. This isn't disagreement, this is the truth. Mason7512 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to current events, it is not about the absolute truth but verifiability, particularly when there is a possibility of new evidence showing up at any time. We do not need 100% accurate evidence to prove that something is exactly what it is or what you believe to be. What is required is the content being supported by reliable news sources, which may or may not include quotations of official statements, whether by the Dutch government or the European Commission. Given that the Dutch PM and EC President have classified the riot as antisemitic, I don’t see how it cannot be stated as such in the article, unless you can provide more reliable sources to show that the riot does not involve any antisemitic elements, which is not the case given the details of the series of events. Steven1991 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the article is currently at November 2024 Amsterdam attacks, and it is actively being worked on. I have done 2-3 minor edits, like splitting longer sentences, or fixing a reference that was in there twice. Eptalon (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

New Article Again

I have another article called Xiaomi 14 can you connect to Wikidata please? Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911  Done 2601:402:4400:3A90:90D2:D9DE:66F0:3B60 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911: Are you unable to connect things yourself? -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 Yes, It says "Only Administrator and Trusted Users can add and remove" Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 01:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911 It shouldn't say that, because I was editing as an IP when I connected the Wikidata item and it worked. 2601:402:4400:3A90:C39D:D68:EDB9:8E05 (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for IP Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911 I too have just connected an article logged out and it worked fine for me so not sure what you were seeing, but just to confirm you can do this yourself, Fwiw though you don't have to connect articles to WikiData as I personally don't when I create articles here, But yeah you can connect these yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010, I recognized you that connected article to wikidata and works fines Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If their IP is blocked with settings preventing them from editing logged in, they won't be able to link pages via wikidata. This is my guess in this situation.-- BRP ^ever 02:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I know, It's IP and Dave Logged out his account automatically and Connected article via Wikidata and he have logged in back it logged it and replied me Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 02:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

But then wouldn't they be seeing a blocked message instead?, Hmm strange –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think is seeing block message if they editing too much using IP Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 02:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Petition at enwiki

A petition has been started at enwiki related to the recent ANI v. WMF controversy. The petition opposes the idea that the WMF might reveal editors' personal information to ANI and the courts. Since this affects all Wikimedia wikis, I think this community should know about it. The petition can be found by clicking this link. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It does strike me as a little odd it's being handled on enwiki and not meta. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 Thank you for posting this QuicoleJR it's greatly appreciated, I also concur with Lee I'm too surprised this isn't being handled on Meta. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not surprised, visibility is the easy answer. Clearly the originators think it will get seen there more. -Djsasso (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Disable filter 86 or opt out simplewiki from global filter 123?

Both local filter 86 and global filter 123 disallow poop vandalism, therefore the local filter might not be needed. There are two options:

1. Disable local filter 86.
2. Opt out simplewiki in the poop vandalism global filter with wiki_name != "simplewiki".

Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 17:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Support for option 2. It's probably better to keep the local filter - administrators always have control over it. BZPN (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)_{Changed BZPN (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)}

I Support option 1 - I didn't know that our local filter is outdated. BZPN (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support option 1, I believe that the global filter will always be better performing (and accurate) than our own one. Not to mention the fact that I don't believe this wiki (as a community) has the capability to maintain such a filter without a noticable reduction in filter quality over time. Plus, the global filter was updated this year, while our own filter was last updated in 2019.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support option 1: Why opting out a global filter when we could just disable or change ours? Option 2 would give us tue same result, with extra steps. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support option 1 - Agree with above - No reason to rely on the local outdated filter when we can rely on the global updated filter, No brainer really :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Is it recommended for all articles about cities to be as long as Lawrence, Kansas? Oholiba (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Article length is a product of several factors, such as how many sources there are, interest of editors to write about a topic, readability, etc. There is no required length for all articles on any topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, many articles here haven't had a lot of interested editors, which is why they are so short. However, I'm understanding from your response that some cities may have less sources written about them, and then it might be better to keep the article shorter, even if someone is interested in expanding it. Is that your view? Oholiba (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct: claims need sources. There will be a lot more claims about Paris than Topeka, for a variety of reasons, therefore, there will ideally be a lot more content about Paris than Topeka here as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will refrain from adding too much detail (about the history, economy, landmarks) regarding things which are less significant or covered in fewer sources. Oholiba (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow your heart, friend. As long as you are reporting the things that are sourced with reliable sources, sticking to NPOV, and you're using simple English, you can't go wrong. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Conference of the parties/Parties

Conference of the parties. "Conference of the Parties".--En-wiki has both titles, but one might feel that both titles seem to be sort of the same thing (and many of our articles belong in the first 'category').--Should Simple-wiki 'worry' about Conference of the Parties, for now? 2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It'll depend on if that phrase is a proper noun or not Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

On that note: It seems like our article, links to the 'wrong' of the two titles at En-wiki.--There might be 'a problem' (and i ain't gonna be working on that problem). 2001:2020:357:B814:4526:D8CE:AC9D:F44F (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A|2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A

Hi, I linked the articles because, despite the different titles, they both are disambiguation pages. If you search the Simple English title on enwiki you will be redirected to the page I linked. The most important part is that the contents of the pages match, not the titles (it's better if the titles match of course, but the content is much more important, because moving a page is easy, but changing the content messes up the change history). About which title is better, I am not sure. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 09:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

looking at a few sources, it looks like a proper noun (as in a title), so the capitalisation here is correct.

It is important, as either it's a title, or it's a series of parties in a conference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many parties (or people) at those conferences.--Each conference of the parties, are not known for 'series of dance parties' et cetera or 'rock n roll parties'.--(If i misunderstood your explanation, then that is not fortunate.)-- 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:343:C4DE:90E5:4DF7:7EAD:409A
Diplomat corps might use capital letters (of 'special words'), more often than encyclopedias do.--With Diplomatic Regards from Myself: 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's why it is important, however, it is referred to as a name, rather than a description (a proper noun), so should be capitalised.

I don't think "Diplomat corps" is a proper noun. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, "diplomat corps" is not in any (reputable) dictionaries - however folksy language that journalists or other writers use, according to the number of google hits)'.--Those People and Practitioners really should know better. 2001:2020:32B:F22A:6D86:6B03:6923:5073 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Horses

Hello! If you like horses or horse riding, you are invited to join WikiProject Horses :) See you there! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 20:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Automatic archival of several pages

Hi all, now that we have SpBot doing the archival, I am here to suggest the parameters for archival. Based on the feedback here, I will proceed with setting up the archival system. The pages and settings I have in mind will be listed below:

• To be archived into yearly archives for the section marked as resolved.
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • Wikipedia talk:Bots
  • Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Current requests for patroller
  • Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Current requests for rollback
  • Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
  • Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles
  • Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion
• To be archived into Monthly archives for the section marked as resolved, or those which have had no comments in 90 days period.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser

If you have any other pages in mind please let me know. Please also let me know any changes that you think is more suitable. I will try to set up things in a way that would make searching the archives a bit easier. Thanks :)--BRP ^ever 13:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Broken Article

Please help me, Lionel Messi Article has been Broken including early life and club career Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe there has never been an early life and club career because I can’t find any evidence of it in the history. Bebo12321 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

look at references please Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh Bebo12321 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911, it's  Done. I've fixed it for now by removing the faulty reference, I'll refine it later. BZPN (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN thank you Raayaan9911 Talk to me! 15:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Protected page text

I notice that there are Template:Protected page text and Template:Protected page text/full, which are unused.

The actual page that displays is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. The enwiki version of the MediaWiki page transcludes the Template, but the simplewiki version does not.

If the Templates are not used, maybe they should be deleted. They seem to be copied directly from the enwiki version, which uses links which don't exist here, and more complex wording. However, I think the "submit an edit request" button is a good feature in the Templates, although it could be adjusted to "submit a change request" or "request a change to this page". Do people want to customize the Templates and incorporate them into the MediaWiki page, or delete the Templates? Depextual (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these templates show up as used the way most templates would. I think they're invoked behind the scenes when someone tries to edit a page that they don't have permission to edit. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that the MediaWiki page is what's invoked when someone tries to do that. Depextual (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

New category for members of the Academia Europaea

I want to create a new category for members of the Academia Europaea, but I don't know how I should name the category. Which version is better?

• Members of Academia Europaea
• Members of the Academia Europaea

Dandelo (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dandelo: First, we should consider whether we have any pages to include in this category (and how many of them there will be). As for the name itself, I think it will probably be Members of the Academia Europaea. BZPN (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As of 2024 the Academia Europaea has more than 7000 members. Accourding to the Wikidata Query Service 265 of them have an article in simple.wikipedia.org. (Most of the 265 articles didn't contain the membership at the moment. So I will have to update them.) --Dandelo (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dandelo You are able to start the category! But for future reference, a category needs to have at least three pages in them. Happy editing :) ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 22:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Western civilization

There is a page western civilization that have many wrong things! First of all you write about western civilization and you dont mention anything about Greece! Greece is the birthplace of western civilization! Secondly you have a map that shows Greece as not a western country and have some other random eastern countries! How can you talk about western civilization and you dont write anything about Greece? All the official sites have Greece as western country! Please fix the page because almost the whole page is wrong!Write some information about Greece and remove the map! Alikakii (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alikakii: Hello. If you think the article contains wrong things, you can correct it yourself - we encourage everyone to edit it themselves. You can find relevant sources and improve the content based on them. Everyone here is a volunteer, and we do not edit at user request. If someone finds the time and wants to edit this page, they will certainly do it, but it would be faster if you did it yourself :). Have a nice day! BZPN (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)