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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Religion

I noticed that Wikipedia states the religion of people who are Jewish and Muslim but doesn’t mention religion if the person is Christian. I find that odd and disturbing. 2603:7000:9500:3C2D:A506:A2D7:A2CB:A5CD (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as all that. Many people who are "Christians" in one sense are unbelievers. In fact it may be that nowadays most are unbelievers or, in T.H. Huxley's word "agnostics". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also "Christians" is a very generic term. Besides the three or four common groups (Roman Catholics, Eastern rthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans) there are many groups that say that they are Christian, but where other groups say they aren't. One such example are the Mormons. So the question should also be according to whom? - Them seeing themselves as Christian is different from members of other Christian churches seeing them as Christian. I also think, that unless we are talking about a religious leader, specifying religion is not that important. Eptalon (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon this is actually an issue with every religion (more or less). For example are Kariates jews? Are Ahmadis muslims? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wrote (and sourced) today that a record-holder for "my" national team, married in a church.--We have some articles that tell about a person being Christian (and some articles about people that have other faiths). 2001:2020:335:9257:5CDA:626F:26F4:72A9 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Then add that he is Christian, if you like (likely church of Noway, Lutherans/protestants?).Be bold, it can always be adapted later.. Eptalon (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

(Indenting here, but I am not replying to anyone in particular) We have to be careful: just because a couple got married in a church, it doesn't mean they are Christian. There are many people (in Italy at least, I don't know about Norway) that get married in a church because it's traditional or cultural, because they don't want to disappoint their parents, because only one of them is Christian or simply because churches make very beautiful venues, but most town halls are ugly and boring. For example, my parents got married in a church, but my father is 100% atheist. In the alternative universe where he is on Wikipedia, he would never want to be described as Christian. We can't guess people's religion basing ourselves on their wedding venue (place). We always need a source telling us that they are actually Christian :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The Church of Norway does not demand that one or the other or both who marry (in Church of Norway), is a Christian. Source,
www.kirken.no/nb-NO/bryllup-i-den-norske-kirke/hvem-kan-gifte-seg-i-kirken/#:~:text=Alle%20par%20er%20velkomne%20til,en%20vakker%20feriring%20av%20kjærligheten.
--That football player married in a Church, and that is sourced.--To say more than that, one would need a source that says: 'confirmation (in a Church)' or 'is a Christian'. 2001:2020:30B:C47E:E1B2:6561:99EF:8820 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, you are right. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many articles that say their subject is Christian. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Religion is relevant to some articles, but not all of them. Rathfelder (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that we should only state the religion if it is somehow relevant. It is not neccesary for every BLP (for any religion) to state the persons religion. Most articles, you probably don't need it. If they are someone committed terrorism over there religion, spend their life trying to convert people there religion, etc, then definetly do mention it. But, yeah, if it is really targeted mentioned of just Jews and Muslims, thats wrong. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandal Warner

I put on Vandal Warner, but I can't find it when I'm editing talk pages. Why? Magnolioideae (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolioideae What do you mean 'Vandal Warner'. I suggest using twinkle as it is easier. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cactusisme: Vandal Warner is a gadget you can enable in preferences. @Magnolioideae: I tried using it when I started editing here, and I believe in a certain theme it appears in the sidebar but the buttons have never seemed to work for me. I just use Twinkle or do it manually instead. --Ferien (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Cactusisme Okay. I'll just stick to using Twinkle instead. @Ferien Thank you! Maggie🌺 ^{talk edit} 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien, You're a life saver thank you!, The buttons have never worked for me either and I just assumed it was somehow related to Twinkle, Never knew I had Vandal Warner enabled so thank you :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ferien One question though: How do you install Vandal Warner in manually? Maggie🌺 ^{talk edit} 15:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Magnolioideae, when I meant "do it manually", I meant applying the user warn templates manually by adding {{subst:uw-vand1}} (for example) to talk pages, rather than using Vandal Warner to apply them. --Ferien (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you for explaining this misunderstanding :) Maggie🌺 ^{talk edit} 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Establishments and disestablishments

"Establishments" and "disestablishments" are pretty complex, and simple wikipedia has pretty much just copied these words from Wikipedia. I wonder if it would make more sense to change these words to "beginnings" and "endings", respectively. This would mean, of course, that "beginnings" and "endings" would also include Births and Deaths. What are your thoughts? MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus to do something like that. Maybe the discussion got archived? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussion (from April 2024) can be found here: Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 157#Category move discussion ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like a consensus had been established that a simplification would be useful. However, a consensus for the specifics had not been reached, and the discussion died out and was archived. As many others have pointed out, words like "started" or "created" can have issues based on the scope of "establishments" being too broad. However, if we use broader terms like "Beginnings" and "Endings", this would make things simpler. Additionally, Simple Wikipedia is supposed to generally have simpler category structure. By including categories such as "births", "deaths", and "introductions" (were the category "introductions" to ever be used in the first place), this makes the category structure simpler. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Will there be many cases of horrible English or experimental-English or unknown-English? "A 'company beginning' and a 'company ending' - not sure i have heard of the nouns 'beginning' and 'ending' about companies.--A company ceases its operations etc.--Have there been cases where we had to go back on some grand idea that we started to roll out?--How about starting with only smaller pieces of the category tree, before we start work higher up in the 'food chain'. 2001:2020:331:CCFE:2CDA:A476:2D02:BF45 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You would not refer to something as "company endings in 1942". The category is called "endings in 1942", meaning that the company was "ended" in 1942. This is perfectly normal English. It goes the same way with disestablishments. It is not referred to as "company disestablishments", it is referred to as "a company that was disestablished." In this case, you would say "a company that was ended".

The point of the category system is that the parent category is a description that can still apply to its children. For example, an article in Category:Biology is also a valid article in Category:Science (with some rare exceptions, such as container categories). In English Wikipedia, an article that is in en:Category:2020 disestablishments belongs just as much as en:Category:2020 endings. This is my primary reasoning for suggesting the terms "endings" and "beginnings", instead of "started", or "created", or whatever else. By default, "endings" and "beginnings" would not result in "horrible/experimental/unknown" English.

This would not be a particularly big project, either. According to AuntOf6, there are about 6,436 relevant "establishments" and "disestablishments" categories. Including births, deaths, debuts, etc., you could add another 2000 or so. Using Cat-A-Lot, this would maybe take a couple of days at most. I have no idea how long it would take to fully automate this. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 15:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey identical person, 2001:2020 you look like me except I have this, 2001:569. 2001:569:7C55:9000:91D9:EB7A:44FC:90C3 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the phrase "disestablishments" does not always work. In the case of Anglo-Saxon runes, it lists these ruins as being disestablished in the 8th century, as though they were formally disestablished in the 700s. However, a much better way to put this would be to say that the ruins "ended" in the 8th century, instead. This is the same for all languages, which were started in a certain century, and ended in another century. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 01:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A New WikiProject

I figured I would inform the community of the Simple English Wikipedia, that I have opened a new WikiProject, WikiProject Denmark. I would appreciate it if the community worked together to expand and help my new project. Sincerely, Wheatley2 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Chemistry (second week of August)

There seems to be a (sort of) interest, that something gets done with Chemistry articles.--Two things that are not high on the "helpful scale": Odd (?) ways of 'asking' people to work for free.--Another thing, one IP can not find (IP) revisions of the Carbon Suboxide article. (Some helpful figures, were added to that article, plus some changes. Those revisions have been deleted/merged or whatever.)--As things stand, i know of one IP which has zero plans for editing Carbon suboxide (because relevant 'earlier versions' are not available).--If this post was helpful, then fine. Not sure i will be back to comment (cuz i will be fixing articles). 2001:2020:347:91E1:A103:ABB3:21DB:4B3F (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet another thing: if you're not 'good' at chemistry, you can help on Talk pages, by saying: 'I have tried to read this-or-that article, and the first line/sentence where the English is not simple, is "Atoms doing this-or-that blah-blah."--If this post was helpful, then fine. 2001:2020:347:91E1:A103:ABB3:21DB:4B3F (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@MathXplore Are there earlier revisions of carbon suboxide (the version of the page you deleted? VirusDontKill (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are revisions deleted per QD A3 (special:redirect/logid/2786281), but I did not delete the page. MathXplore (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that, that article (special:redirect/logid/2786281) gets re-published in some form.--The current article does seem to lean somewhat on parts of that version; i seem to recognize some of its focus and 'experimental formatting': "carbon with the chemical formula O=C=C=C=O. Its four cumulative double bonds make it a cumulene."--I seem to rembember that i added a 'more normal' chemical formula, without removing the above formula.--I also seem to remember that i added at least one reference.

If someone were to ask if the current version is more simple, than "my" ('untraceable' version), then i am not sure if i can find a diplomatic answer; However, i doubt that I have let anything that looks like the following quote, stand in the lede: "part of a series of "oxycarbons" with formulas C_x+1O_x, i.e. C, C ₂O, C₃O₂, C₄O₃, C₅O₄, ..., and having identified the last two;"

If this post was helpful, then fine.--The good news, is that one (other) chemistry article was fixed earlier this month. 2001:2020:309:D647:2D2F:BE93:4170:D57 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:D647:2D2F:BE93:4170:D57 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@MathXplore See above. Can you find and restore the revisions the IP is asking for? VirusDontKill (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think restoration should be discussed with user:Macdonald-ross, please feel free to use WP:DRV. MathXplore (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sent talkback (Special:Diff/9694803). MathXplore (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Since we do have En wiki for a fuller story, this wiki is meant for younger readers, and readers whose normal language is not English, etc. It is a valid to edit so that our pages are accessible to these audiences. That's all I try and do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, i think that you should really consider having the article that you deleted, '''re-published'''.--The Talk page, too.--Maybe, maybe, maybe you have made a (mistake or) judgement of error (such as not noticing if a lede had been made simpler).--Anyone can make an honest mistake.--I seem to remember that part of 'someone's ' arguments were ''also'' that the ''topic'' was too specialized (or something like that). That might be a fair point. (I can not recall Chem 100 or Chem 101 textbooks, at college level, having ''pages'' about Carbon suboxide.)--Another thing: to my knowledge, this wiki is not meant for any particular age groups. But one might get confused by hearing that the ''reading level'' of the English here, should be ''fifth grade'' (of elementary school). 2001:2020:353:9F53:C4A9:4563:5C1F:173F (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:347:91E1:A103:ABB3:21DB:4B3F

Simple Wiktionary link

Hi, Quick question does anyone know how one links to Simple Wiktionary?, Can't seem to find anything on EN as to how to link to it ?, Just shows the normal one, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010 It's wikt:word. VirusDontKill (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@VirusDontKill, My mind is blown- how does that work when English Wiktionary and Wiktionary are two different sites ?, I'm impressed yet absolutely confused, Anyway thank you much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010 It appears that wikt:word always links to the Wiktionary in the corresponding language, while wiktionary:word always links to the English Wiktionary. VirusDontKill (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@VirusDontKill, Wow I'm actually impressed, never even realised that was a thing, You learn something new everyday :), Anyway thanks again for your help it's much appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@VirusDontKill@Davey2010: That's how to do an inline link. If you want the kind of sister project link that usually goes in the other websites section, there are templates for that, for example {{wiktionary}}.

While on the subject of links to Wiktionary, please avoid using inline Wiktionary links in articles. Better options are:

• Use different wording, especially if the term in question is complex and/or not likely to have its own article sometime in the future.
• Link to a local article, if there is an appropriate one
• Link the term (even if the link is red), but explain it (sometimes done in parentheses).

Reasons for not using inline Wiktionary links include:

• The reader has to go to a different website to get information.
• Many English words and phrases have multiple meanings. A reader looking at a Wiktionary entry for one of those might not be able to figure out which meaning is intended.
• Using a Wiktionary link instead of a red link hides the fact that we could use an article on a subject.
• If an article is later created on the subject, we could be left with Wiktionary links that should be local links. I've seen this happen: when someone creates an article, they usually don't look for everywhere it could be linked in other articles.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You raise very valid points, my assumption was that readers would know what meaning applied but I guess not, I'll remove the link and try and find a simpler word, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

External links/Other websites

The general consensus in Simple Wikipedia is that we use the term "other websites", rather than "external links" in section headings. It has come to my attention(see my talk page) that this does not necessarily apply to categories. In particular, the category tree Category:Wikipedia external links has many templates and category names that use "external links". Fixing this is not difficult, and most of the work is already done(although the work can easily be reverted if there is not consensus). I therefore ask for a consensus for the following:

1. All instances of "external link" in categories be replaced.
   1. If "external link" is used as an adjective in a category, it is replaced with "other website".
      1. Ex., Category:External link templates is replaced with Category:Other website templates.
   2. If "external link" is used as a noun in a category, it is replaced with "links to other websites".
      1. Ex., Category:Articles with dead external links is replaced with Category:Articles with dead links to other websites.
2. All uses of "external links" in templates and template documentation relating to categories should be replaced with the renamed category.
3. All uses of "external links" in templates and template documentation not relating to categories should be replaced with the appropriate english equivalent.

I am sorry if this sounds convoluted. Unfortunately, "other websites" and "external links" are not a direct 1:1 translation. In some places, we would have to use "links to other websites". I derive this term from Wikipedia:Links to other websites. These 3 rules, however, are catch-all rules that would allow for a seamless transition. Please read through this and put in your input. Thank you. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 21:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with every point, let's see what other users think. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the same for 'See Also' and 'Related Pages' 2001:569:7C55:9000:A099:30F7:BE87:7691 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

However, we don't have a lot of infrastructure related to those that potentially needs changing. Let's stay on topic. If you think those other terms need discussing, please start a separate discussion. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed fr33kman 05:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I too agree. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Who are you agreeing to? 2001:569:7C55:9000:910:2D97:DDED:BBD1 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We are agreeing to the idea presented above by MrMeAndMrMe Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ขอเข้าระบบคาบ

อยากเเก้คำผิด อยากเรียนรู้ ศึกษา 1.20.169.213 (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Please use (simple) english here. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I translated to English. 2001:569:7C55:9000:910:2D97:DDED:BBD1 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Where? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Google translate. 2001:569:7C55:9000:ECFA:321A:4920:2F78 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Please visit Special:CreateAccount and create an account or stay as an IP. up to you, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, please post said translation and future things in simple english. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

IP 1.20 and IP 2001 are not the same user. IP 2001 translated the original comment, but I undid their translation, because they completely changed the original comment instead of writing a new one. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that Davey2010 reverted it as well (and I agree with his revert), but I didn't know it until now. I wasn't trying to take credit for it. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Drone" - and disambig page

en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Drone
is a disambiguation page.--Maybe we should continue to do the same?

Drone (bee) and Drone (ant) are drones.

With the existence of
Land drone and
Sea drone, then it might not be obvious the title "Drone" should only be about aircraft. Thoughts?--Another thing: it is not my feeling that "aircraft drones" can be neatly divided into sub-categories. 2001:2020:347:B44D:34F0:3CD2:765:6EB8 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:347:B44D:34F0:3CD2:765:6EB8 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Category:Unmanned_aerial_vehicles
, is a relevant discussion. 2001:2020:347:B44D:34F0:3CD2:765:6EB8 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We should use the easiest to remember term. As you point out, 'drones' are also the usually short-lived males of several social insects. Eptalon (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In light of what user:Eptalon is saying, then maybe "Drone (aircraft)" should instead be the title of Unmanned aerial vehicle. 2001:2020:347:B44D:892C:2A9C:8B5D:3EBA (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While at first I supported Unmanned aerial vehicles being moved to Drone as the most common name, I agree with this point more. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Please rename the article/title Drone (aircraft), and at the same time have the categories changed to Drone, and sea drone and Land-drone. 2001:2020:30B:B726:7111:436F:B339:F9C2 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:347:B44D:34F0:3CD2:765:6EB8

  There is no "rename". The only thing you can do is move the article 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 00:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  Be bold (and just do it)? 2001:2020:30B:B726:702F:3244:8EA0:7277 (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I can't. I am not auto-confirmed (and neither are you). To do so I'd need to wait for another 39 hours or so. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 02:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! How can I help?

I am new here, and I wanna help. What can I do? Theres not much vandalism to fix, and I am pretty bad at fixing article and putting sources... Haumeon (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You can start digging in here for things where you think you have the right skills: Category:Wikipedia_maintenance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Other things to do:

• When you find interesting facts, write a short hook, and nominate it for Did you know?
• If you find an article that you think you can improve, there are two categories of bettter-quality articles Wikipedia:Proposed good articles and Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles. We both need reviewers, and people who propose new articles.
• General article cleanup:

• look at Category:Complex pages, and simplify articles listed there
• look at Category:Pages with too many red links...
• Category:All articles with unsourced statements....

Eptalon (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Astronomy needs more people

I like astronomy (my name is a play on the dwarf planet Haumea), and I searched for an astronomy task force. Turns out everyone there is now inactive, and there were only three people. So the project is inactive. Could some more people visit the WikiProject and get it started again? Haumeon (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Haumeon. You can't really try and talk people into joining. My best answer is if your WikiProject has some sort of userbox that you can put in your user page, you can hang it up there and see what happens. You can discuss that in your WikiProject's talk page. Hope this helps. Maggie🌺 ^{talk edit} 22:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Weird logout problem

I'm sorry for the storm of comments, but I have a question and you are the only people who can help.

Every few minutes, I am suddenly logged out of my account. I've tried Microsoft Edge, Chrome, and other browsers, and also incognito mode, and the problem persists. It happens most often when I am recent changes patrolling, or when I visit a page in userspace. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 00:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Haumeon Trying clicking 'keep me logged in' Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there

Do redirects also count in total pages? 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 23:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Haumeon: What do you mean by "total pages"? -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not, when it comes to the few cases where the powers that be, scrutinize who is here to build an encyclopedia.--I am assuming that the question is in regard to 'edit count'/'page count'. 2001:2020:30B:B726:702F:3244:8EA0:7277 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirects for common typo

i thought that was a No-no??

See Algoritm and a lot of others which have popped up over the last hours. 2001:2020:30B:B726:702F:3244:8EA0:7277 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Adres. 2001:2020:30B:B726:702F:3244:8EA0:7277 (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Look. There is a list of common typos that are in the WP namespace. I know that a lot of wiki-searchers would end up making typos that are like this and listing in the Wikipedia list. Algoritm is Algorithm. A person typing fast would type this. Really, I should do this. The article wizard says it's a good thing to do so. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 02:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is it said that it is a no-no? Also see Help:Redirect🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 02:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually you're supposed to do it as it helps people who are looking for something to get to it quicker. Also Adres is "Address". They included it in the list. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 02:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Common typo redirects are not prohibited and in fact encouraged since it accounts for people who type fast or helps with people who do not know the full spelling or common spelling of a word. – Angerxiety^! 17:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. For example, my "adres" page has already been used multiple times already (My beginner homepage says that). Thanks for clearing that up, @Angerxiety. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 17:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

👍 :) – Angerxiety^! 17:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note that any of those pages can get nominated for Delete.--Maybe one should not put more effort into a redirect project, than one can afford to lose, even all at once. (That would take more than one or two people getting bored with 'heavy-handed redirects etc'.)--Let me try to look at things from another side: redirects that i think might suck, but which others might like: Norwegia, Algeers, Wikipaydeea but not Mohammed Dali (world champion boxer), and not Salvadord Ali (painter).--If this post was seen as helpful, then fine. 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:30B:B726:702F:3244:8EA0:7277

Another thing, if the community gets bored with one of the things that the Article Wizard might be saying, then it has happened previously that the community overruled a previous position.--That is my understanding.--(Now, time for my to fix some "reel"-like-an-eel articles.) 2001:2020:315:AB3B:99BA:A06E:2047:B62B (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Read Help:Redirects. Even this type of redirect shouldn't get nominated for deletion, (read the help article), as they are still more helpful than they are not. Also I only make redirects that people are sure to use. I have proof that people have already used my redirects. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 20:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus why don't you have an account. You do know that everybody knows your IP Adress. Also you can fix more and do more if you just create one? 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

One of many oblasts ("regions") in Russia

Is this a Simple lede, about one (or many) oblasts?

"This-or-that Oblast is a part of Russia, an oblast. Sometimes it is called a region (in English). It is headed by a governor, and it is a federal subject of Russia. Its administrative center (capital city) is the city of Belgorod. Population: 1,532,526 (2010 Census).
Its name in Russian: Белгоро́дская о́бласть, Belgorodskaya oblast."--Thoughts? 2001:2020:315:AB3B:E1C9:7676:AC87:6978 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My comments:

• First sentence could just say "is an oblast of Russia" because "oblast" is linked.
• Remove the sentence about it being called a region. That information belongs in the general oblast article.
• Divide the 3rd sentence (the one that starts "It is headed by a governor") into two sentences.
• Change the statement about population into a complete sentence.
• Put the Russian name in parentheses right after the English name in the first sentence, like this:

[[This-or-that Oblast]] ({{lang-ru|Белгоро́дская о́бласть}}) is an [[oblasts of Russia|oblast of Russia]].

Any questions? -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This-or-that Oblast (Russian: Белгоро́дская о́бласть) is an oblast (or region) of Russia.. ...

This-or-that Oblast (Russian: Белгоро́дская о́бласть) is a Russian oblast (or region).. ...

The word region, was (my) main point of making the change (followed by governor being more down-to-earth than the additional (important) thing about "federal subject").--The other stuff you mention, is just fine.--If i hear no more, then i will move slowly (with the version from this last post), and do the Belgorod article and then the Kursk Oblast article, and then wait a few days.--If anyone removes the source, then i intend to not re-insert the source.--Thank you for your (previous) reply! 2001:2020:315:AB3B:E1C9:7676:AC87:6978 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 2001:2020:315:AB3B:E1C9:7676:AC87:6978 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think articles about oblasts should explain that in English it would be called a region. Most English speakers - including me - find it very confusing trying to understand the names used for subdivisions of countries. Rathfelder (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"This-or-that Oblast (Russian: Белгоро́дская о́бласть) is an oblast (region) of Russia. ... "--Comment: I hope that this version, is Simple and (largely) tolerable. 2001:2020:315:AB3B:99BA:A06E:2047:B62B (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this version. VirusDontKill (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: i have put the 'governor stuff', towards the end of the lede. (Rationale: Details about most of those persons, ends up getting outdated, and (largely) staying outdated.) 2001:2020:331:97B9:30F6:9B23:DFD2:6CFC (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Source

2001:2020:315:AB3B:E1C9:7676:AC87:6978 (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Page deletions RFD/QD

I've seen quite a few cases recently where an article winds up on RFD when it's clearly a matter for QD. This then leaves a new RFD discussion page being created for the RFD page and the article being deleted by a roving admin. For instance, when I'm patrolling RC and I see a good QD candidate I don't nominate it I just delete it. Then I get back to new changes and sometimes I see someone has tagged it with an RFD via twinkle. When this happens I'm recommending that we remove it from RFD and simply delete the discussion page via WP:G6 as housekeeping. Thoughts? fr33kman 19:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it seems more convenient Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images

See the main page: Non-free content proposals

I know this was brought up fairly recently but I missed it due to being on vacation. The old-timers can tell you I would start a discussion every year about this. This time I'm proposing that we would solely allow those pictures that are already being used on enwiki. No other non-free images would be allowed under any condition. This would solve a lot of the time and effort issues that have already been brought up many times before. Any image that doesn't appear of the enwiki version of the page would be forbidden to use here. I think this would solve the effort problems and also allow non-free images for TV shows, comic books, and other cases where having an image would add clarification to articles. Thoughts? fr33kman 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• I assume this means we would be hosting images here. How much administrative burden would this add?
• What if a non-free image being used on enwiki stops being used there? Would we remove it here, or keep it on the grounds that it used to be used on enwiki?

For convenience, here are some relevant policy/guideline pages I found on enwiki:

• en:Wikipedia:Non-free content - guideline
• en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline - guideline
• en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - policy with legal considerations

-- Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Isnt that what wikimedia is for? [1] Rathfelder (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: In general, yes. But there are some images that Commons doesn't allow. Some of those can be uploaded at enwiki, following certain requirements, and this proposal is that we also allow it here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If a non-free images stops being used on enwiki then I would think we would stop using it here. As for admin burden this is why I'm suggesting that we only permit images that are already on enwiki. This way they will have already gone through the burden for us, we'd simply follow what they do. We'd let them hash out the rationale, copyright concerns etc and we'd use the image after enwiki has addressed all those issues and simply use the end product. fr33kman 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend that only still images being allowed and that non-free video clips, text, and the like be banned. There will be a brief amount of initial overhead as we create the appropriate guidelines and usage templates for local usage but that would be a one-time only thing and that day-to-day use of non-free images would be easy to implement and that the local upload of the image would be simple to enact. fr33kman 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman: If a non-free image stops being used on enwiki, how would we know? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A bot could be made to monitor the situation and then inform the project or remove the image. Then manual deletion would need to be performed. I don't see it as something that would need to happen often. Enwiki doesn't often delete non-free images very often. fr33kman 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree: see Bart Simpson vs w:Bart Simpson as a simple example of article improvements offered by a rigorous non-free policy.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if Mediawiki offers interwiki file embedding into pages (other than from Commons), so that might need to be a feature request to avoid rehosting every en.wiki file. - Tule-hog (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Comparing the global file usage between the first and second hints the non-free use policy is a broad issue in the Mediawiki ecosystem. Tule-hog (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Each image would need to be hosted locally, commons can't host them. fr33kman 20:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting interlinking from en.wiki not commons, hence hosted there (not commons). My comment is in reference to that not being possible as of now (as far as I'm aware). Tule-hog (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no precedent for this within Wikimedia. I'm not sure how feasible such a technical exception compared to the other wikis would be. TheDJ (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I've said it in a past discussion but it's never made sense to me as to why we don't either host images ourselves or somehow piggyback off of the English Wikipedia as strictly speaking we're kinda the same ...., Anyway and to my knowledge all other local Wikipedias host their own images so why shouldn't we ?, I don't see a reason why we can't host images if I'm being completely honest. –Davey2010^Talk 21:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  See the Media Statistics for Wikipedia for why re-hosting is probably not preferable if it can be avoided. 300GB isn't huge huge though, certainly not in comparison to Common's stats. Tule-hog (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Jctbtm / table not correct end

Hi, I use en:WP:WPCleaner which lists errors from low to top priority, one of the categories in the top priority list is "table not correct end"

Usually this error means the end code ( |} ) to a table is missing or that an article is using a templated top but not a templated bottom (so for instance if someone wanted to close a discussion they would use {{atop}} and {{abot}} instead of {{atop}} and </table end> as {{abot}} is the footer/end of the table

Anyway motorway articles are in this category and I believe it's down to Template:Jctbtm and more specifically "invoke" somehow not working ?,

I say it's related to invoke because 1. Template:Jctbtm uses invoke and 2) over at SpongeBob_SquarePants_(season_1)#Episodes none of the edit summaries show (I've updated everything with the episode table template and I believe Module too)

I can add |} to the end table on articles which according to WPCleaner "fixes the problem" but it just leaves trailing table end codes behind[2]

At Template:Jcttop and Template:Jctbtm I had reverted back to pre-LUA conversions hoping that would work but it didn't, I had updated Module:Jctbtm and that only fixed the key placement and Template:Jcttop is only used on American highway articles (UK motorways have normal top tables),

I've checked English Wikipedia motorways on WPCleaner and the articles doesn't show there so it's an issue here and I'm lost as to how to fix it so not sure if anyone with more knowledge with this stuff would have any idea ?, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix it myself but @Djsasso: does, iirc, have more knowledge than I. So perhaps emailing him might be a good start. Other than that, there are some members of simplewiki who would know the answer. Failing that you could individually approach one of the enwiki authors about it. They have helped in the past and generally approachable. fr33kman 21:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fr33kman, That's a great idea I didn't even think about asking enwiki authors, If DJSasso can't/is busy etc then I'll try asking enwiki authors in a few days time, Thank you for replying and helping it's always greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

How to get account back?

Hi. My account has a new password and I forgot it. I tried doing the forgot my password thing but it won't send. What do I do? 2601:402:4400:3A90:F920:2D8C:FC24:CB4D (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There are some instructions at en:Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#How_do_I_recover_a_password_I_have_forgotten?. Is that what you already tried? You can only do the recovery if you had an email address connected to your account. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If you haven't connected an email address to your lost account, you may create a new account and state that you had a previous account. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Coming soon: A new sub-referencing feature – try it!

Hello. For many years, community members have requested an easy way to re-use references with different details. Now, a MediaWiki solution is coming: The new sub-referencing feature will work for wikitext and Visual Editor and will enhance the existing reference system. You can continue to use different ways of referencing, but you will probably encounter sub-references in articles written by other users. More information on the project page.

We want your feedback to make sure this feature works well for you:

• Please try the current state of development on beta wiki and let us know what you think.
• Sign up here to get updates and/or invites to participate in user research activities.

Wikimedia Deutschland’s Technical Wishes team is planning to bring this feature to Wikimedia wikis later this year. We will reach out to creators/maintainers of tools and templates related to references beforehand.

Please help us spread the message. --Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages

Vandalism

Anyone know how to change this? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions on Simple English Wikipedia are updated through Wikidata. I've reverted the vandalism—thank you for pointing it out. – Cyber.Eyes2005^Talk 12:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Template categorizations

Currently in Simple Wikipedia, we have many templates for YYYY categories that very easily take categories such as Category:1985 establishments and puts it into Category:1985, Category:Establishments by year, etc. These templates are very useful as they provide an easy way to regulate and edit many similar categories quickly. However, this does not always work. In the case of Category:1930 movies, I do not think it is likely that there will ever be a category for Category:1930 in entertainment, which is a red link. This is very common (see Special:WantedCategories), and detracts from the quality of the categories since it becomes harder to navigate.

I wonder if we could instead auto-categorize to the decade if there is not an existing category year through the template. In this case, Category:1900 movies would be categorized into Category:1930s in entertainment. Does anybody know if this is possible? MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 16:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This somewhat exists in Template:Category if exists. This would categorize the category if said category existed. However, there is no parameter for if the category does not exist, and instead just removes the category entirely. So it would need to check if the category for the "year in entertainment" exists, and if not, it would use the "decade in entertainment". (see the enwiki article on "else statements") Is this possible? MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It should be possible by directly using the "ifexist" function (if that's the right term) that the template uses. What if the decade-in-entertainment category doesn't exist, either? How far up the chain would you go to find a category that exists?

We actually had a discussion a while back about whether templates should assign categories at all. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What about using the "ifexists" function and manually adding the larger parent category if the specific one doesn't exist? Like the change made by @Auntof6 in this category: Category:2002 establishments in Australia (ignore my changes just look at Auntof6's). ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant by @MrMeAndMrMe, I confused you two, my bad. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 I probably do not have the skills to implement a LUA function, but I think it is definitely possible. Addressing your second point, I think we could just use "if else" statements up to the relevant century. If the category for the century does not exist, then that is an issue on its own. In most cases, the category for the century can pretty easily be filled. If there is another discussion for if templates should have categories, that would be an interesting one because I can see both sides of it, but for now I think using another template would solve the current issue pretty well.

@Dream Indigo this does not work for every category. I was able to change that category from "2002 establishments in Oceania" to "2000s establishments in Oceania" because that category is not part of the template. However, let's say "2002 establishments by country" did not exist. Then you could not easily change this. I suppose one could manually add on "2000s establishments by country", but that does not fully address the problem in my opinion. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe But if we change all template-categories to be included only "ifexists", then they will never appear as red categories, I believe. I might be wrong though. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dream Indigo: I think you're right. I think that's why this kind of thing was not adopted in the past. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there can be code included to both include the red categories and the closest category near it, so it is useful to both navigate and edit to see wanted categories. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 17:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@MrMeAndMrMe: I don't think there's any Lua required. There's Lua inside the ifexists structure, but that's just what is done if the if condition is met. I just createdTemplate:Category if exists/sandbox with the code indented to show the actual structure. I think the ifexist things existed before we had Lua here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

31 RfDs numbered 1..27..

Topic says it all? Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon It's because these aren't listed at WP:Requests for deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Umaima al-Baghdadi
2. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Oleksandr Klassen
3. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Ali Malikov
4. Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/199 (number)

The 4th RFD seems to be vandalism. 2601:644:9083:5730:EDCD:F32E:CE64:CD67 (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll add them later, thank you... Eptalon (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Added them all, but closed the last one as a speedy keep... Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Vehicle category for vans

Hi, So individual car models are listed at Category:Citroën automobiles, Category:Fiat automobiles, Category:Peugeot automobiles etc but to my knowledge we don't have anything for vans or minibuses,

My issue revolves around the individual models at LDV Group as they're vans/minibuses I don't know whether I should create a "LDV vans" and "LDV buses" category, or just "LDV vehicles?, So was hoping to get feedback as to how go about it or do I just leave the individual models under "LDV Group?,

Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)