Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Personal particulars on a new User page[change source]

Are there any actual prohibitions of particular personal content on User pages so that SE WP isn't exploited as an electronic bulletin board a la social media sites? I'm not talking about advertising a commercial entity but persons (e.g. User:Razaulqadriashfaqi complete with social media links, or User:Brighton Niwomurinzi who essentially posted a resume of education and work experience). I can recall seeing phone numbers and email addresss removed (on EN WP) but hadn't noticed by whose intervention. What would be a helpful action, if any, on the part of a non-Admin here? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as they aren't minors they can self identify if they wish, though we highly don't recommend phone numbers. Emails aren't an issue, some users actually use their email as their username. Advertising type info is of course no good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a question of whether they are here to contribute, or just to advertise themselves. This individual is clearly using us to advertise his social media pages. I don't think we should tolerate that, because he has made no contribution and is just here for a free ride. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle Preferences Message[change source]

Above the options there's a notice "Only you, Wikipedia administrators and Interface editors can modify your preferences, but the settings you choose are visible as JavaScript code to everyone." Isn't normal admins unable to alter users js/css now, so the message should change to interface administrators which is the term used by WMF? Wikipedia seems unnecessary and interface editors is not the precise term for it. Thoughts? Sorry if I am wrong in this.--Cohaf (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

We use interface editors slightly differently here. While the admin can't edit those things immediately like they used to be able to, on this wiki they just have to ask a 'crat for the flag temporarily for any edits they need to make. So they can technically still do it. Can try to reword it to make it clear I suppose, though probably not that important a distinction. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso:Thanks. I think it's seems moot now. I don't know that sysops can be granted IA directly as on Chinese Wikipedia, normal sysops needs 3 days notice for IA. Thanks for your explanation. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Frequently vandalized page to add to your watchlist[change source]

John F. Kennedy has been getting vandalized again. (It happens to this page now and then.) It's not frequent enough to semi-protect, but maybe some of you would like to add it to your watchlist so we van catch vandalism sooner. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Added, how I wish there's pending changes here, nice case to apply it.--Cohaf (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Cohaf, if there's consensus we could ask devs for it. Vermont (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Vermont.I see, but how's the process and who can be allowed to review pending changes are things we have to sort out. Happy to discuss further. --Cohaf (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to have pending changes on all our vulnerable pages. We have had some pages vandalised again and again and again. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Not the biggest fan of pending changes, especially in a small community as good edits end up sitting forever to be checked, at least in my experience seeing it on other small wiki's. It is always added with good intentions but not sure with such a small community that it would end up being any better than just watch listing pages. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't trhink pending changes (or whatever you call thew procedure) is a good idea on this wiki. This community isa too small to implement it. As an alternative, I'd see semi-protection (limit to autoconfirmed), or a special set of editfilters which would tag edits by new users/known LTAs on certain pages. And if we must: how many pages are we talking about, and how long till a piece of well-identified vandalism was reverted? - Without numbers, there's no meaningful discussion (except for the measures I proposed). --Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there are many regularly vandalized pages that aren't immediately caught. Even the one that started this section has hardly been vandalized (in terms of edits per month). Using the one in this section as an example, it did get a bit of a burst of vandalism last October but then it slowed down. Could probably have put a short temporary semi-protection on it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Right, my use of frequent was meant to be relative, meaning often enough that more people watching might be helpful. I also watch the page on JFK's assassination, and the pages on Lincoln and his assassination for the same reason, as well as others. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Pending changes seems like a good idea, but I agree with those who said above that we probably aren't big enough to keep up with it. We already don't keep up with patrolling new pages: we have pages that roll out of Special:NewPages without being patrolled. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually we can turn on pending changes as a backup. When there's a need, at least it is fitted. Otherwise I guess although protection isn't predictive or anticipating, we can protect high risk article temporarily, e.g. During midterm elections result day, politicians articles often got vandalised, hence, we can preempt a short 1-2 days semi on some of the articles. Best,--Cohaf (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

FileExporter beta feature[change source]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1Lib1Ref[change source]

Are we participating in this? Just wondering.--Cohaf (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anybody is organising here. Hiàn (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Hiàn.--Cohaf (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No editing for 30 minutes on 17 January[change source]

You will not be able to edit the wikis for up to 30 minutes on 17 January 07:00 UTC. This is because of a database problem that has to be fixed immediately. You can still read the wikis. Some wikis are not affected. They don't get this message. You can see which wikis are not affected on this page. Most wikis are affected. The time you can not edit might be shorter than 30 minutes. /Johan (WMF)

18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

New York moves[change source]

New York needs to be moved to New York (state) and New York (disambiguation) needs to then be moved to New York, per the enwiki and the fact that the state is not what people usually mean when they say "New York". This move doesn't appear to be possible for a non-admin. IWI (chat) 23:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am opposed to this move. New York City being referred to as New York is a colloquialism; given that most users of this wiki are not familiar with northeastern American colloquialisms, if they are looking for the state they will type New York and if they were looking for the city they will notice the "This page is about the U.S. state, but you may be searching for New York City." on the top of the article. Vermont (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: It's less of a colloquialism and more of just a disambiguating way of calling it, to distinguish it from the state. The point is to redirect someone who searches for "New York" with a direct choice between the city and the state. This is exacerbated when you think of other language's way of saying it: Spanish - "Nueva York" (literally "New York"), French - "New York", Portuguese - "Nova Iorque" (literally "New York"), Chinese - "Nie Yue". The list continues – it is clear thata disambiguation page is needed at New York. IWI (chat) 23:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, as someone from the UK (another demographic), I can say that I've never really heard people here call it New York City. IWI (chat) 23:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay; I'd support redirecting New York to the disambiguation page. Why did you change the name of New York City to New York in the prior linked article? Vermont (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
New York should not redirect to New York (disambiguation). The standard is to have the page with the "(disambiguation)" qualifier be the redirect. That allows for deliberate !inks to the dab page (through the redirect) without those links looking like unintentional links there. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree, Auntof6; New York should be the dab page, which was the approach used by enwiki. IWI (chat) 00:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not saying that New York should be the dab page, just that if it were the dab page it shouldn't be a redirect. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
you can’t have it both ways. You cite English Wikipedia here as the reason to move, but then your edits that I just reverted at New York go against how the city is named in the English Wikipedia article on the state. You can’t cite English Wikipedia as precedent for some of your changes but ignore it for others. Only (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Only: No, the English Wikipedia simply gave me the idea, I don't think we should cite it as a reason to do anything; we are a separate wiki. My actual reason is outlined above, do you agree to that? IWI (chat) 23:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever is done, make sure to double check !inks to any pages that are changed. If articles currently link to "New York" and the state is intended, and then we make "New York" a dab page, we need to change all the links there to point to the right thing.

That being said, I think that New York should remain as an article about the state, because that's its name, and it should keep the hatnote that it has. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes but since New York City is officially "City of New York", it could be argued that it is also the name of the city (like how "Los Angeles" is officially the "City of Los Angeles", but not called "Los Angeles City"). In my opinion, the phrase "New York City" exists in the same/similar fashion as "New York State", to disambiguate. A long debate occured at en:Talk:New York City, which determined that the primary name of NYC is "New York". IWI (chat) 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • New York should not deliver New York State. It should deliver the city directly, because that is what most users would want it to. The dab page should be New York (disambiguation). This way the mass of users can get to where they want to go with one click. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. "New York City" is a good self-disambiguator. "New York" should be the dab page; "New York (state)" should be the state's page. IWI (chat) 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems that different wikis have taken different approaches. English: New York is disambig, state and city has separate pages. Spanish and Chinese: Nueva York and 纽约 are about the city, and there is a separate "(disambiguation)" page and a state page. There might be simply no single correct approach. User670839245 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
In English, we have the natural DAB name "New York City", which is different to other languages where none exists. "New York" alone however, is confusing, which is why New York should be a DAB page. IWI (chat) 15:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying we should do it because is doing it. But the way they are doing it does make more sense as New York City is a natural disambiguator. Will be quite a bit of work to clean this up if we actually wanted to do it however. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that helps the reader's understanding is well worth our time ;). IWI (chat) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no, as I said I am ok with the move. But that doesn't always mean that its worth our time. With such a small editor base sometimes other areas can be more worthy of our time. In the case of this though. It could probably be done pretty quickly with AWB. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: An admin with AWB should do it, as the discussion has gone quiet. IWI (chat) 00:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment, why would AWB be needed? Vermont (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: Because doing it manually would be tedious; I guess it wouldn’t be needed though. I would do this myself but I don’t have page move rights (I can’t move pages to redirects with a page history). IWI (chat) 16:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of voter eligibility[change source]

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

In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TDKR Chicago 101 2 a vote was stricken. There are some uncertainty about whether it's an SUL or local account. I then propose that WP:CFD under who can vote to add the date of creation of named account should be based on the date of creation of an attached local account in this wiki. Ideas?--Cohaf (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please conduct this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship. That way, we'll have the record of it connected to the page that it affects. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Not much of the community, save for the few who watch that page, will notice it there. I was under the impression that the purpose of ST was to conduct discussions like this for community consensus. Vermont (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrator note: Moving this to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship

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

info-simple OTRS queue[change source]

A new OTRS queue was created for Simple English. It is at and If you want to help answer emails, you can volunteer at meta:OTRS/Volunteering. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • One doubt, is the queue for Simple English Wikipedia queries or queries made in Simple English. Thanks. --Cohaf (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me check my AF log?[change source]

I triggered the abuse filter when trying to reverting another user's edit on Temperature,Filter description: ** vandalism.(I guess I cannot say the word before vandalism ?) Then every time I submit my edit I would encouter the warning and my autopromote is blocked. Pages include Hangzhou, Wikipedia:Simple talk and even my talkpage. Can anyone help me check the AF log ? I do not think I am doing something wrong. Thank you.--94rain Talk 01:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@94rain: I'm reviewing the log now. This page also tracks change filter mistakes. Operator873talkconnect 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@94rain: After review, most of your edits hit global filter 163. You'll need to go to meta to report issues with that because I can't even see those. The only time you hit local filters was using a word ( ** vandalism) which can easily be fixed. That filter shouldn't be an issue for your much longer. Again, as far as the global filter, I'm sorry, I can't help. The local filter, well.. avoid use of that word. Operator873talkconnect 01:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Operator873:Thank you. I will report it on meta then.--94rain Talk 02:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Reference list formatting[change source]

How would I propose converting the labeling of reference list sections? Take List of Ekushey Padak winners in Education and research for example, 12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Ministry of Cultural Affairs, p. 1 if you where to look at similar formatting on enwiki you would see 12 a b c d Ministry of Cultural Affairs, p. 1. Can we use the lettering system here? Nunabas (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? Nunabas (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I imagine you would propose it here, on this page. Why do you think we should change, and what would be involved in doing the change? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

from what I can tell it would involve changing 3 interface messages [1] Nunabas (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. That doesn't say why we should change, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If your looking for why, Using letters is better for readability. take 12↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 vs 12^ a b c d especially in reference sections where text is smaller. Take List of WWE alumni we have 181↑ 181.01 181.02 181.03 181.04 181.06 181.07 181.08 181.09 181.10 181.11 181.12 vs 181^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Nunabas (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
To be honest I find the numbers more simple than letters. It is clear that it is reference 181 and instance 1 or 2 etc. Whereas the letters don't make that clear. I am guessing that is why it is what we use here. Remember we try to be simple in all things, not just the language. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess we have different perspectives then, I find the letters easier and simpler. Nunabas (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I should be clear, that I don't have a strong opinion. I was just pointing out why we might have gone the number route. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

BBC template - Analogue/Analog & Digital[change source]

Hi, Just wondering should "Analogue" and "Digital" be removed from Template:BBC (thus just leaving tv/radio stations/other services),
Going by Analog_television#Transition_to_digital (at EN) most countries have switched over - Russia's expected to switch over in July 2019 and the Philippines in 2020/2021,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

IMO the template should be updated... not going to provide suggestions since this isn't a topic I'd rather delve into but the proposal seems relatively rational. Hiàn (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, rational enough to change.--Cohaf (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

New Good article: Oxalaia[change source]

Hello all, I just promoted Oxalaia, it is outr 61st Good article. Congratulations to all tohse who contributed, and helped it get this status.--Eptalon (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cite error references no text[change source]

This error message should be adding pages to Category:Pages with broken reference names but its not.... Nunabas (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the code, but the job queue could take awhile to move pages if there are any. There may not be any. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep filling up now. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sock creating hoax articles[change source]

Could someone have a look at Special:Contributions/ This is the same sock as the one described here. Uanfala (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think its part of the Pakistan POV Pusher we have had before. Just blocked, and removed their content. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideas for a writing assistance tool[change source]

What would your ideal tool look like, for helping any editor here to write better Simple English articles? I've long appreciated the Hemingwayapp and Upgoer6 tools, which take different approaches to highlighting complex sentences or vocabulary. What variation on those ideas, do you think could potentially be good on this wiki?

I've often wanted to contribute here more frequently, but I always feel hampered by not having a good sense of which words are too complex. I think having a tool something like those 2, embedded in the editing window (toggleable, of course), might help people like me to be more active.

I wrote some notes on the idea at phab:T135321 a while ago, and now I'm asking folks here for more feedback on whether you think this might be helpful at all? If so, what specific features would need to be included (or excluded) in order for it to be a clear success? (All dependent on if a programmer is ever inspired to implement it, or if it goes into next years' wishlist, etc). Thanks for any thoughts! Quiddity (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the idea of being simple is purposefully vague. We have found in the past when people have tried to create tools that you can't really have such tools to help you because beyond the Simple English word list there are no concrete rules or lists of words that work for a computer which needs such things. Computers just aren't up to the task of creating simple articles. (by that I mean helping) But you shouldn't be feel hampered. Assuming you are a fluent English speaker it is pretty easy to know if something is too complex. Someone in the past created a firefox dictionary for simple English which some people liked using but again that only helps with word lists and not so much sentence structure. Really most of how things are written here come down to instinct. Some people also run what they write through reading level tools. But that doesn't always match up with our goals either. You probably are not going to find the answer in tools unfortunately. That being said the Hemingwayapp is a nice one to get some hints from, but you couldn't do everything it says. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)