Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 148

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and close at 23.59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page currently has little to nothing about the band past 2014. I have written sections that cover this in my sandbox, but they do have some important redlinks. Plus, since RHCP is a Very Good Article, I was hoping some other editors could check over it and make sure it's ready. As for the citations, I'll get those sorted soon. Cheers - 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to change the PAGENAME parameter in a template so it will replace the spaces with underscores? This change is necessary for {{Welcome-en}}. If there are spaces within the URL, only the text before the first space is recognized as part of the URL, which results in the issue at User talk:Just some student on the web. Instead of linking to "User:Just some student on the web", it links to "User:Just", and the other words become part of the link text. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in MetaWiki’s magic words but there wasn’t anything I could find. SikiWtideI (Speak to the backwards police) 14:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

instead of using bare external links, it would be a better idea to use interwiki links such as this.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This works and the change was made. Pure Evil (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellas, I will have my wikibreak for few weeks until Feb 2023. I have my exams so I will be busy in that time. I will join as soon as it ends. Have a nice day. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 17:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRC-B5, good luck with your exams! See you soon. --Ferien (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the templates in Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates have stray }} characters at the bottom of the page. I compared some to the English Wikipedia versions, and this seems to be because the templates here were created without the following line at the beginning:

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||date=__DATE__ |$B=

I don't know that all of our templates have this difference, but one that does is Template:Expand Basque.

So my question is, do we need to add that line to our templates here, or can we remove the extra brackets? I know this has something to do with substitution, but I don't understand what the extra line at enwiki is doing.

Thanks in advance. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The missing line deals with how the template gets subst: Actually, how it doesn't get subst'd. That line prevents subst: from working and adds the "date= <month>, <year>" parameter to the template when someone tries to substitute it. They could go either way (add the line or remove the extra set of brackets) but it is probably better to readd the safestub line just to be safe. Pure Evil (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this }} on which template page.. I guess German or something.. I nearly forgotten. I couldn't fix it in general and later I ignored it. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 12:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can't log in not cookies 173.49.207.112 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of work with templates, and I keep finding ones that need updating. I've been thinking it might be helpful to have a way to call attention to templates that need to be updated periodically. This could help us find those templates and check them systematically if we want to. This would include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Templates for sports teams that don't specify a year. An example is Template:1. FFC Frankfurt squad, which looks like it's meant to have information on the current squad at any given time.
• Templates for people in political positions that change hands, especially those that are regularly up for (re-)election. These would probably be mostly navigational boxes. A lot of the high-profile ones get updated when they need it, but I think we have some that not as many of us pay attention to.
• Many templates with names that start with "Latest". Many of these templates are under the categories Category:Latest stable software release templates and Category:Latest preview software release templates.
• Many templates with names that start with "Current".
• Others?

I'd also recommend adding {{Check completeness of transclusions}} to these templates.

How could we do this?

• We could create a category, possibly named "Templates that need periodic updating", to hold the templates.
• We could put something in individual templates that would flag them as needing update after a certain date passes. This would be similar to the way the template {{update after}} works with articles. With sports templates, we could make the date be the beginning of the sport's season. With political templates, the date could be the time when elections happen.

I realize that anything we do might be wiped out when templates are imported from enwiki, but maybe there's a way around that.

These are my preliminary thoughts. Does anyone else think this would be helpful? Are there other options? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: I think a tracking category would be useful for this. I personally keep track of the German population metadata templates, COVID-19 data templates and other miscellaneous data templates, which i look for in categories such as Category:Data templates. --Fehufanga (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga: Thanks -- yes, I didn't think of data templates, although I guess the software release ones are also data templates. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for GA and VGA can linger for a very long time. This may contribute to the lack of input or any urgency to complete the process of making an article Good or Very Good. Interlingue, Sugar, and Yellowstone all appear ready for decisions if an admin could take a look at them. Other old ones may be ready as well. (And, my own nomination for Emu War has received some help from DovahFRD, Lights and freedom, and Macdonald-ross. If anyone else has any comments on it, they would be much appreciated before the target three week evaluation period closes. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 23 active requests, 7 have people other than me submitting opinions. Are people just ignoring the requests? Should we even bother with requests when everything is a soft delete? Pure Evil (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RfD will usually stay up for a week; some are closed 1-2 days early, when the result is clear. And no, quick-deletion cannot replace an RfD. If people are asked to discuss, and they don't write anything, its difficult for them to later to complain. So, no, we can't force people to participate in RfDs, but if they don't they'll havew a hard time discussing whatever the result was (whith which they don't agree). Btw: I just closed four RfDs... Eptalon (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, as an admin I sometimes don't comment on RFDs just so that I can be an uninvolved admin when it comes time to close them. I do comment if I have a viewpoint that isn't already represented in other comments, or if I disagree with the way the discussion seems to be headed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you comment on an RfD you can still be the admin to close it. The key is to be unbiased when you do so. fr33kman 00:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it depends on the comment. I obviously meant comments that were opinions about the page in question. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with Auntof6's viewpoint. If something is generating a lot of discussion I will usually choose to leave open for longer so that the arguments can be presented and responded to. On the other hand, if the article is clearly inside or outside the guidelines I will close it early so we can focus on what needs to be discussed, Peterdownunder (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to the pages Tunceli Province and Dersim. They are not simplified and biased IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now closed. The results will now be counted and scrutinized to ensure that only eligible votes are included. Results will be published on Meta and other movement forums as soon as they become available, as well as information on future steps. Thank you to all who participated in the voting process, and who have contributed to the drafting of Guidelines.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template's figures are apparently over 10 years out of date. Would anyone like to update it? Or nominate it for deletion? English Wikipedia doesn't have an equivalent that I could find. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Template:OS Market Share Lights and freedom (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikipedia is once again joining other Wikis around the world in the Feminism and Folklore write-a-thon! Come write about feminism, folklore, or both. I'm told there is a modest prize. Wikipedia:Feminism_and_Folklore/2023 Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a lot of work on our templates that aren't linked in Wikidata -- establishing links where possible. I've found subtemplates here that English Wikipedia doesn't have because their main template was converted to Lua and the Lua version doesn't use the subtemplate(s).

As far as I know, our non-Lua versions still work, but do we want to change ours to follow enwiki? Maybe fewer people here know how to work with Lua (I don't -- yet!), but what problems could be caused by not converting ours? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I'm learning Lua to use it on another Wiki, so I might try maintaining them once I get a better hold of it. I have no objections on converting existing templates to use Lua modules. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 02:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga: How are you learning it? Do you know of any good self-study materials? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I got started with Lua's official book, which is available for free online. For the MediaWiki-specific functions, there's the official documentation for that. I work my way from the hello world example in that documentation. I don't install Lua, I instead make test modules on testwiki. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the user has only made 8 edits outside of their user space in five years, I do not really think they qualify as a member of the community here. Pure Evil (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a mistake when the global ban notice was being sent: meta:Special:Permalink/24503224#Please massmessage this concerning recent RFC for global ban — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of articles on individual initiatives or ballot propositions (such as 1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 16 and 2016 California Proposition 64), but there is no article on the concept of Initiative as a whole. Does anyone want to create it? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes more sense to use Category:Childhood for things related to children in general, and Category:Children only for articles about individual children. This is what English Wikipedia does. Can we agree on this? Lights and freedom (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if we don't do that, the categories should be merged. Otherwise it's confusing what goes in which category. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I have written a bot to update the TOTW on Simple. It uses Jwiki (and Java), and it updated the ToTW yesterday. Just wanted to post this here, to see if there's an interest in such a bot. We are looking at roughly 100 lines of code, so nothing big. Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon: Would you remind us what TOTW stands for? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the week. It is updated weekly in Wikipedia:RecentChanges. BRP ^ever 10:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:RecentChanges/TOTW, to be precise :) --Ferien (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon Not really a big deal, but the bot seems to add a newline before the template. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats easily fixed, thanks... Eptalon (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC for adding the G5 quick deletion criteria, as a follow up of a previous discussion, is open. See here. Thank you. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently attempted to simplify the article on English wikipedia for here using a new strategy. Is the article Jongmyo (shrine) well written or does it need more simplification to meet our standards? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a closer look at the article later.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 09:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to use the content translation tool and found that it seemed not to work anymore. Has it been disabled here on simple english wikipedia? If it has then it gives a poor indication as many pages still suggest using it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: I don't know if it has been disabled, but I do know that it can't really "translate" into simple English. Anything that it translates for here would most likely still need quite a bit of work to be ready for publication here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I want to use it because it gives easy attribution and is connected to wikidata to tell you what articles exist related to the content. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle No it has not been disabled, I can still use it. Go to Special:ContentTranslation, then select the language you want to translate from, type in the article title, and the language you want to translate to.

@Auntof6 It doesn't attempt to "translate" English into Simple English, but is convenient to transfer templates, headers, other page elements, and one paragraph at a time from the original article to the new article. Then you can see the new and old paragraphs side by side and simplify the new one. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have used it in the past, depending on your needs it can be helpful. Be aware of the following:

• It cannot handle the fact that a template existst in one language, but doesn't in the other
• As pointed out above, there's no "automatic translation", it simply copies text. It isd on the editor to translate.
• Depending on the length or complexity, simpli summarizing/paraphrasing might be quicker than content translation.
• Even after "publishing", you'll likely need a few edits on simple, to clean up the translation.

Eptalon (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was it recently shifted to extended confirmed requirement? I'm trying but it doesn't let me actually make a draft. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle Are you trying to translate from English to Simple English? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedomyes I am Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle The Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have an extended confirmed user group and as far as I know it hasn't been disabled by anyone here. I think it's worth opening a phabricator ticket. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 23:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle I now see that you're right. My bad. When you click on "Start translation" it doesn't open the side-by-side translation page. @Fehufanga This IS something that needs to be fixed. Lights and freedom (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle @Lights and freedom Please refer to T329442, which is currently tracking this issue. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With an update to {{Infobox wrestler}} to add coverage for other parameters included in imported boxes, a tracking category was generated. It lists articles using the infobox with unknown parameters. The first pass of new entries was over 300 articles which had parameters it did not recognize. The most common of these is the name used for image captions.

To fix this, a bot (full or AWB) would be extremely useful to go through Category:Pages using infobox professional wrestler with unknown parameters and change img_capt to caption. This wont clear all the entries, but it should make it more feasible for me to hand correct the remainers. Pure Evil (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me a message on my tp, what the thing looks like befroe, and what it should be, afterwards; I might spend some time on it. Eptalon (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the img_capt ones, this is something that can be done fairly easily with AWB, without having to setup a bot to do it. --Ferien (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gone through and fixed a lot of the caption ones, however it appears most of them have multiple errors as there are still 211 pages remaining in that category. --Ferien (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed down all but the R's. Im guessing this are resides and residence. Neither of these are needed parameters and can be remove entirely. Its a dual issue: personal privacy should stop us from saying where the performer lives and the performer isnt the character and to some degree, Kayfabe is sort of respected - its not the person as much as the character where possible so where the actor lives is not often needed info. But it is also an article about the performer, so it would be valid info.. but there could be privacy issue so it should be avoided.. but.. my head hurts, just make it go away. Pure Evil (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R also stands for "real" so real height and weight trigger it as well. As height changes to some degree over time and weight can change based on what a person ate that day or the quality of their most recent bowel movements.. that info isnt very useful or accurate. Pure Evil (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given how out of date the info is on many of the articles, putting a set of eyes on them is not a bad idea.. Had many that got married (name changes), left the company, came back, won major championships and collection of all the above.. and most of the info is from 2014-2016 so it is long out of date. Someone went through and finished the category, so I can;t confirm they got the changes needed. On the plus side, one of the bot had issues so I am reverting back and redoing its edits manually with changes here and there as needed. Of 50 edits, only one didnt need fixed.. fun times but at least there is a positive side to it all. Pure Evil (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references in Kiryat Matlon are trying to use templates with Hebrew names which, of course, we don't have. Can anyone figure out what they might be supposed to be and use templates with English names? Thanks. Pinging נתנאל שטרן, who created the page. Another issue is the nonexistent "Globes" template used by the third reference -- figuring out that one would be great as well. Thanks again. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the templates are referring to Hebrew news companies. No. 1 (קול העם) is Kol Ha'am (hebrew wiki) and No. 2 (כלכליסט) is Calcalist (hebrew wiki). Don't know about Globes, or whatever the templates are supposed to actually present. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely target for globes would be the new agency (home page) Pure Evil (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention that the AD years in Category:Years are not being sorted correctly. The cause of this issue is the collation algorithm simplewiki uses. Currently, it is set to default (case-insensitive, string-based sorting). This does not work well with sort keys that begin with numbers, such as the AD years in Category:Years. Enwiki, on the other hand, uses the more up-to-date uca-default-u-kn, which allows numerical sorting and is a lot more multilingual friendly.

To fix this, the Simple English Wikipedia's $wgCategoryCollation configuration variable needs to be changed to uca-default-u-kn. Before I open a phabricator ticket to do so, I'd like to hear thoughts from the community. Thank you. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is how AD years are currently sorted:

1

• ...
• 1019
• 102
• 1020
• 1021
• ...

And how it will be sorted with uca-default-u-kn

0–9

• 102
• ...
• 1019
• 1020
• 1021
• ...

— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, but I have some questions.

• Would this apply to pages in all namespaces?
• Would this change apply only to pages whose entire name is digits? If not, we might need to check our non-year pages whose names begin with digits -- not only categories related to decades, centuries, and millennia, but things like Category:1. FC Köln players and 1. FC Köln (for a football team), 1566 Icarus (an asteroid), and maybe others.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 This applies to all pages in all namespaces whose name starts with a digit. They would all be sorted under the 0–9 category. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 06:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga: Thanks. I'm in favor of the change, but just wanted to understand how it works. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ill assume it is padding all titles that start with a number with a set # of 0s (X-len{# part of title}) and using that if the default sort is used or if the sort key is an unpadded #. If this is the case, it seems like a good change with no drawbacks that I can foresee. Pure Evil (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it converts the string into a numeric value instead "alphabetizing" the number (sorting by on the character string). If it just padded with zeroes, it might have to figure out how many zeroes to pad with, which could change when more entries are added that have different numbers of digits in the number.

Interesting programming topic. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it would need to know every sort key / title in the category to sort it in the first place, knowing the max number to set X to would be child's play. One pass to count, one pass to pad, off to sort. it would barely add a few milliseconds to the sort time in all but the most number intensive categories (hundreds of titles starting with numbers such as astronomy cats). Pure Evil (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming items added in the future didn't fall outside that calculation. I suspect it sorts based on a numeric value, not on the string itself. At least that's the way I've always done it and seen it done. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is assuming it is done dynamically. It would be next to impossible to not conform to a calculation that is done every time the page is generated. Pure Evil (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been open for a week with no objections, as such I have filed a phabricator task for the request at T329815.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 06:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was implemented not too long after the task was opened. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to post my article here. How this is possible. Kindly guide me. Also I write about freelancing. Bint001 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends what "your article" is. You could for example say: "Look, I have improved article X, but it is still difficult ot understand, can anyone help me simplify", or you could find an interesting fact, and write a hook for "did you know". Then your article would get more hits, when the hook is published. Note however, that there is no ownership, so all the articles "belong to" everyone, and we expect a certain level of encycopedic notability, and reliable sources; so generally, we don't write about ourselves, or about people we feel close to, as ther may not be the required distance to get a well-balanced article. Eptalon (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 24 hours, I have reverted changes from at least three different IPs that were adding unsourced information about people's religion to articles about politicians and other celebrities, and adding incorrect info about political party affiliation to biographical articles. Issues with this include:

• Mentioning the religion of a living person requires a source.
• Some of the political party info was incorrect. For example, a politician who was a member of the Democratic-Republican Party was listed as being in the Republican party.
• Category:Republicans and Category:Republicans (United States) were added to articles that already had the category for US Republican politicians or for Republicans from their individual state.

I'm just mentioning this in case anyone would like to help watch for this kind of thing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On several pages, Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist is described as having 1500 words, and BE 1500 redirects there. Why? That is completely false! There are about 2600 words! Lights and freedom (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this up and realized that the "1500" number comes from the WP:VOA Special English Word Book, which actually has 1500 words. The Basic English combined wordlist is described as having over 2000 words: http://ogden.basic-english.org/word2000.html Lights and freedom (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was historical, that originally there were 850 or 1500 words, but later more words were added. Extra problm: If you have a verb it has different forms (have,has,had,having), also there might be a plural form (which is formed according to some rules)=, - how do we count the words? Eptalon (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.

After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon.

From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone answer the question at User talk:Zlgll#Simple English and User talk:Aidar254#Simple English? The only thing I know of is https://simplish.org and from what I've seen, that "translator" sometimes highlights words that are in Basic English, which makes it confusing. Lights and freedom (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of making something similar to XKCD's simplewriter. I think it can be done with regex testers too, such as regexr, though the regex will be quite long (unless you optimize it). — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 01:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While not the same as Basic English lextutor does a good job of identifying words by frequency of use. So, the first 1,000 - 3,000 words are pretty simple and likely to be in a learner's vocabulary. Gotanda (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alert. There have been a number of new articles for bands and their members. I have no comment on the bands, they may or may not be notable. The individual member on the other hand are commonly not. All the pages have info on is date of birth and member of the band. There is the occasional date of death or a line covering what they did after the band. This is commonly not notable (is selling insurance in Los Angeles). There has been at least one exception, but for the most part, I have been redirecting the non-notable members to the article for the group. With the exception(s), I clean up the article, wikify it, toss on the cats and send it on its way.

This has led to at least one category being created with not enough entries. It had the members before I decided to redirect most of them. That category could be deleted without incident as there is not likely to be any other articles to add to it. Pure Evil (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds like a good option, especially if there are incoming links to the member's name. You may or may not want to watch the redirects, at least for a while, to make sure they don't get reverted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this article Ancient Kangleipak which is not present on English wikipedia and was planning on translating it into English wikipedia when I noticed a lot of the sources seem bad. Can someone review this article to make sure it is good? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'the sources seem bad' - bad in what way? - The article was created by a respected editor, and I clicked on a few of the sources (and they seemed to load ok). Content-wise, I have no idea though.. Eptalon (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tripod pages have about the same level of reliability as Tumblr pages do. (ie. none) As to E-pao, they seem to publish contributor articles and such so they do not seem very reliable either. Those two account for most of the references in the article so reliability is certainly questionable. The contact info for Imphal Times is a GMail addy so I don't have high hopes there. Kangla Online at least has its own email and looks like it is trying to be legit, but it does have a bit on contributions and there are likely COI concerns based on the name (Kangla - Kangleipak) . The only ref left would be a very poorly scanned .pdf that is extremely difficult to even read. Over all, I have little to no faith in any of the references being very reliable. Pure Evil (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are likely COI concerns based on the name (Kangla - Kangleipak)

Kangleipak refers to the state of Manipur. To say that is a COI is like saying "South China Morning Post" has a COI when writing about South China. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "that is a COI" is to make up words.. There is a difference between that and saying that there are concerns, If the name of the subject is in the source their should always be concerns that there could be a COI issue if the reliability of the source is not known. If I did not know if the NYT or Washington Post were reliable sources, I would have to consider if there would be an issue with a NPOV on the subjects related to their name. Kangla Online is unknown to me so I must consider that it could have a bias when dealing with the subject. Even having a COI/non NPOV issue is not a deal breaker. MSNBC and Fox New are both seen as reasonably RS over all but both have a strong bias in their presentation. To say that the Sharon Herald cannot have a COI when dealing with Sharon, Penn would be silly. The question would be if they are known to be reliable over all and if their statement is likely to be true (news piece which would haven been fact checked vs OpEd piece which gets less verification) Pure Evil (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC is considered generally reliable, as is Fox News (except for politics, where the consensus is less clear). --IWI (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THat would probably explain why I said "MSNBC and Fox New are both seen as reasonably RS over all" Pure Evil (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of the editor base here, keeping everything up to date is not feasible. As such, there are certain thing often said that are likely going to be not true. the biggest one is "current" / "Currently". <So and so> is currently <blah> is likely no longer true. It was when it was written, but 5 years later it is often wrong. Shifting to "In 2022, <so and so> became <blah>" would always be true without needing updating. The article may need an addition to update when further things happen but the past info is still correct. They may no longer be <blah> but the fact that they were at the given time does not change. Examples: Chris Parks began working for the WWE in <year> not "is currently working for the WWE". Joe Biden "became the PotUS in 2020", not "is the current PotUS"

If the information is time sensitive, it should be changed to be as accurate as possible when read from some random time in the future. Every event that has happened took place in the past. Most often, it would be best to stay in the past tense when talking about things that occured in the past.

A template similar to Template:You (the original use - prior to its repurposing and move) could also be created to tag and track article that need to be fixed to be less time sensitive. Pure Evil (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of categories that can contain countries. These include:

• Category:Republics
• Category:Current monarchies
• Category:Countries by language
• Category:Island countries
• Category:Landlocked countries
• Category:Least developed countries
• Category:ASEAN Members
• Category:Caribbean Community
• Category:Commonwealth member states
• Category:G8 nations
• Category:Members of NATO
• Category:Members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation‎
• Category:Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States

And then there are the others which seem to be the main categories:

• Category:Countries by continent
• Category:Former countries
• Category:Unrecognized countries

The question is which of these should contain the country's article directly (like Malaysia) and which should contain the category for the country (like Category:Malaysia). Right now it's inconsistent. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

<country>|<space> should be in Cat:<country>. The cat should be the one in all the parent cats that apply. Category:Countries by continent should not be on this list as no country is the entire continent. (Oceanic countries should be used to replace Australia to account for related countries such as New Zealand and many other South Pacific nations which are not part of Asia)

Exception seem to be made, at times, for what are seen as minor cats (established. disestablished and such). These tend to be based on the individuals opinion as to which are minor and thereby attached to the country and not the country's cat. Pure Evil (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

 

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

 

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im working on uncat articles and an issue popped up with linking terms. Is it Nepali or Nepalese when dealing with people? The English article uses Nepalis as the demonym but we use Nepalese. Nepalese refers to something dealing with Nepal and so is not incorrect. It is also listed as an English variant of the people. Nepali seems to be the accepted name for the language (Nepali language) and the people (Nepalis). We use Nepali language yet we redirect Category:Nepali politicians to Category:Nepalese politicians. I haven't checked the other people cats for redirects but a quick glance shows that the namings follow the Nepalese example. En: Nepali people and Nepalese people=> Nepalis which lists the English as Nepalese but shift all over the place between the two terms.. Which is preferred for use. Also, there is no local article under either name for the people nor a redirect back to the nation.

So are they Nepali politicians or Nepalese politicians? Pure Evil (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is even more problematic. Looking at the main label, Nepalese people, no one can agree how to name them. English used that category name but the "main article" to describe the category is only a redirect to Nepalis. That article uses several different terms for them.. English can not even agree with itself what to call them. Looking at the major Latin alphabet languages: de - Nepalese (no person), en - Nepalese people, es - Nepalíes, fr - Nepaleesk persoan, it - Nepalesi. The less major languages are of little help as they are also all over the place in form. Napali, Nepalese, Nepalese/Nepali people, people of Nepal. Pretty much every main variation is used by some language. Sp my question is, do we conform to what English fools itself into thinking it uses (they say one thing and do it and others) or go some other way? Pure Evil (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pure Evil 'Nepali' is the native term in Nepali language. The Constitution of Nepal uses 'Nepali'. While speaking in English, and outside Nepal, we usually use 'Nepalese'. There is no uniformity, so we can go with either of them. I think using 'Nepalese' is a better idea since it is more popular term outside Nepal. BRP ^ever 15:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Nepalese" is standard English, and by far the commonest of the two terms. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need Science Communication, Science Education professionals or any Simple English Wikipedia enthusiast to teach and facilitate the development of a Wikipedia project around Climate Change - Simple Wikipedia Campaign for Climate Change. Nothing much: just to give a brief virtual talk on how to edit Simple English Wikipedia and if possible be a jury on a Simple English Wikipedia edit-a-thon contest. Who would be interested or who can you recommend? Danidamiobi (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but this is a dead duck. We are a small wiki with everyone fully employed. Try main English wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know of at least one or two editors here who are not employed. If you, Mac, aren't interested (which would be a shame because you're one of our main science editors), that's fine, but let others speak for themselves. This request relates specifically to Simple English Wikipedia, so asking at the regular English one wouldn't be very helpful. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Danidamiobi: Hello, and thanks for wanting to brief potential new editors here on how to edit here. There has often been an issue of people wanting to start helping here (which we could really use) but not understanding how this wiki works or how it is different. Well-intentioned editors start doing work here assuming things are the same as on regular English Wikipedia and sometimes end up feeling like they're under attack when their changes get undone.

The differences start with needing to keep language simple which you can read about at Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. They go beyond that, though, which you can see something about at this list I created of other things that are different. If you have any questions about anything on the list, feel free to ask. Auntof6 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Danidamiobi: I would be open to helping out with this. --IWI (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be so privileged to have you on board. It is such a rare privilege. Danidamiobi (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although if an editor more experienced than me (such as Auntof6 or Macdonald-ross above) decided to hold this talk, I would recommend them over me. --IWI (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Danidamiobi: I have noticed a lot of accounts creating pages about Nigeria: Margob28, Ennydavids, Semmy1960, Akwugo, Kaizenify, Yemi festus. Has this project started? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedom:. Having these editors contribute is per the code for Africa project which focuses on documenting climate topics from Nigeria. This is mainly a long stretch edit a thon; and the above editors are only trying to contribute here aswell after extensively translating from English Wiki to other local languages Wikipedia. Kaizenify (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truly. They have a remarkable contribution on Nigerian content but per article count and contributions on Simple English Wikipedia, they may not match the need of the project at this stage. Danidamiobi (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Danidamiobi: Is there someone overseeing these contributions, or are the editors working on their own? The reason I ask is that there are several things in the articles being created that need to be addressed. Can these things be brought up with one central person, or do they need to be brought up with each individual contributor? Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe @Kaizenify monitored the initial efforts from the contributors. If there is anything to address on their contributions, it is part of the reasons why I am having this exercise/project and I will be glad to fix them while I note it down for the participants I will be training locally. Well done. Danidamiobi (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellas, I re-joined Wikipedia again. After having a visit with another wiki project and having my exams, forced me to take wikibreak. But it seems that the community is increasing in its strength again and new changes are also observed I see. Kudos to the community. Dibyojyoti^{let's chat} 04:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DRC-B5: Welcome back! --IWI (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which way of writing (wiki-article), is preferred? (Or, are any of these viewed as not acceptable?)

• "is a kind of molecule and compound". (See dipeptide; )
• "is a kind of molecule, because it is a compound".
  
  Comment: Many people have an idea what a molecule is, while that other word (compound) might be known merely as something to do with science.--All compounds are molecules; I prefer writing, "is a kind of molecule and compound" - because it feels like the Simple choice of Simple English. Thoughts? 2001:2020:32B:FDBD:30A8:3274:92BA:6B97 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32B:FDBD:30A8:3274:92BA:6B97 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying a Ford F-150 is an automobile and a truck. An organic compound is a molecule so there is no need to say the same thing twice. "X is an organic compound" says it is a molecule just like saying "is a truck" also says is an automobile since a truck is an auto. If they did not know an organic compound is a molecule, that info is in the link provided. the info is given. It is up to then to read it. This does not work in reverse as a molecule need not be an organic compound just as as automobile is not always a truck. Pure Evil (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It "is a blah-blah compound (and therefore a molecule)".--Many people have a good idea of what are: molecules, pickup-trucks, and automobiles.--Quarks and compounds, on the other hand, is something Average Joe might not have a good idea about: quarks sounds like a duck, but does not walk like a duck. "Compound" might sound like something related to farming.--I am satisfied that this thread has indicated that the first two suggestions (in this thread), seem to be a dead end. 2001:2020:331:F6C1:A985:B943:A659:6DC6 (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compounds are automatically molecules. A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it doesn’t bother anyone, I just didn’t know any place to ask on the other Wikis, so I picked the Simple English one. In short I got globally locked, then I sent an unlock request to the stewards. Not long after I received an email notifying me that my request had been received. But now I have one last question and maybe some experienced users can help me here. The thing on my mind right now is if it’s going to take a ridiculous amount of time for me to get an answer or will it actually arrive fairly quickly.

Anyway thank you in advance for the most likely useful. 80.209.216.81 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP,

we are a Wikipedia like any other. As such, we do not interfere with requests that were sent to stewards. If there was a request for a gloal lock, it will also affect this Wikipedia. In the meantime, I hope that you edit here constructively, so that you do not get blocked. Eptalon (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can take up to few months to get the response. In the meantime you should not evade your (b)lock like this.--BRP ^ever 10:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to move Medieval Kangleipak to Early Modern Kangleipak because it is about the Early modern period of Kangleipak rather than the medieval period. I want to list it for discussion rather than just moving the page. How do I set up the template for it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuelle: Are you asking for the page to be moved, or to have a discussion about moving it? If you want it moved, you should be able to do that yourself. To have a discussion, just start it at on the talk page and let people know about it at WP:Simple talk. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima: so you see this. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Talk:Medieval Kangleipak. I too think it is best for a move proposal to be on the article's talk page with a notice here, so the discussion is in the talk page's history. --IWI (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trizek (WMF) (Talk) 21:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prokhor Orlov is causing me concerns.. It is screaming that it was copied from somewhere but I can not find a source to lead to a QD tag. He seems notable enough and the article is well written and well sourced but being not simple nor wikified or in categories, there is work to be done. I am just wondering if the work would be wasted if it turns out to be a copyvio. Can anyone find a source to support/decry QD or should we just tag it up and toss it into the queue with all the other articles in need of attention? Pure Evil (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find anything other than our article here. I wonder if it was translated from Russian. I can't read Russian or I'd check the Russian Wikipedia. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can any established wikipedia-user tell us that the article is not a hoax? 2001:2020:307:DB2B:F0CF:3A46:2485:EFD (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at the edits and saw that many of them had Chinese text that got replaced with English text, so it seems the article is at least partially a translation of a Chinese article.

I don't know anything about this topic, but I did notice that there is a sub-heading called Paul Mauriat's History." But the name Mauriat appears nowhere else in the article. So that heading at least seems spurious. Kdammers (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the English Wikipeda, the Paul Mauriat entry presents him as a French musician. Kdammers (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On en.wikipedia.org, there's the draft space, a way to work on articles before releasing it to the article space. However, in the Simple English Wikipedia, you can't. You need to use a user sandbox.

This page is a sandbox. It is not an encyclopedia article, and may not be accurate. The person who created or worked on this sandbox, Simple talk, may be changing this page at the moment. You are asked nicely not to change this page while it is being worked on. Thank you.

"You are asked nicely not to change this page while it is being worked on." But how can other people work on it if we want others to do it, too? Is it possible to edit in someone else's userpage's subpage? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is actively working on something in their userspace, you probably shouldn't edit it. In general, though, it is allowed to edit in someone else's userspace, but it is usually a good idea to ask the user first (though most would not be against someone making improvements). --IWI (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you do not have to use the user sandbox; you can create as many pages as you need in your userspace with any name. --IWI (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there's also a template, called {{in use}}, which you can put on the top of a page (if it is not in your userspacce). It tells other people that you are working on the page. If you see this template, you should look in the logs, when the last change was done, beforemaking an edit. You can also ask the user who placed the template, if they are still working on the page. Eptalon (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok now i get it Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 00:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ever underage to edit Wikipedia? Is there some sort of minimum age to edit Wikipedia? Or is editing Wikipedia targetted at older users? What I'm simply asking is: what is the age limit of editing Wikipedia? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 21:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no age limit, but minors should take care to not reveal any personal information. --IWI (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users who are very young may, however, be eventually blocked (as a last resort) per what is said at competence is required. As long as a user is able to edit well enough, they are welcome here at any age. --IWI (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WPchanger2011: Note that part of the personal information that should not be revealed about minors includes their age, and there are multiple ways we have seen this information revealed. Direct statements of age, having one's age or birth year in an infobox on the user page, and statements that they are in school at a level that is for underage people are some of the ones I've seen. None of those should be done. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the internet does not forget, it is generally a good idea to reveal as little personal information as possible. Note that you can write me a mail, and I am able to remove sensitive information from the logs; this is called Oversight. As an oversighter, I have also promised to not reveal the things that you tell me, most of the time. Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the answers Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 00:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 

Please help translate to your language

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the third edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 1st until 31st March 2023. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contribution in every language! The most active contesters will receive prizes.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge!

ValentynNefedov (WMUA) (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This a reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Department is hosting office hours with community members about updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use.

The office hours will be held today, March 2, from 17:00 UTC to 18:30 UTC. See for more details here on Meta.

Another office hours will be held on April 4.

We hereby kindly invite you to participate in the discussion. Please note that this meeting will be held in English language and led by the members of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team, who will take and answer your questions. Facilitators from the Movement Strategy and Governance Team will provide the necessary assistance and other meeting-related services.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently created an account here on simple wiki. I had a question which I had asked with another rollback editor and it wasn't much helpful.

I wanted to know if the articles created here on this wiki have their own Google Knowledge Panel like how enwiki does?

Rejoy2003 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone know how we can fix the "noinclude" tick when creating an RfD with Twinkle so that it actually adds the noinclude tags? --IWI (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ImprovedWikiImprovment It looks like params.noinclude isn't working at all (line 8465). Perhaps, the code in line 8465 can be replaced with:

  if (mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') === 10) {  // If in Template namespace:
      pageobj.setPageText("<noinclude>" + "\{\{RfD|" + params.reason + "\}\}\n" + "</noinclude>" + text);
  }
  else {
      pageobj.setPageText("\{\{RfD|" + params.reason + "\}\}\n" + text);
  }
  

  Which adds noinclude if the RfD template is being added to the template namespace. This doesn't really fix the noinclude checkbox though. I leave it to an IA whether to implement this or not. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 14:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ferien, Eptalon, Chenzw, Enfcer, and Djsasso: Thank you, that should be enough; pinging 'crats. --IWI (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to implement this and also remove the noinclude checkbox. --Ferien (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Done --Ferien (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ferien: Thanks! --IWI (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ferien: Yes, thanks, this is very helpful! -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to simplify Herpes simplex but I had some difficulty. Mainly the last two paragraphs are complex. Can anyone help with this? I wasn't sure about some things, like whether "Worldwide rates" is simple, and how to say things like "usually acquired during childhood", "rates of both inherently increase as people age", and if the sentences should be broken up. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sectioning; and I guess by now, most of the more difficult terms are well explained, IMO. Remember Sipmle English is about explaining well, it is not about just using words from a given listing. Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good question, why is there no sandbox? As someone who used to be in En Wikipedia I used it a lot so why is it not here also? Yes I know i can make a page under my user like User:123/Pagething but there should be a sanbox imo. Yodas henchman (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Wikipedia:Sandbox. MathXplore (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use WP:SANDBOX. 174.27.21.219 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basic principle of categorisation across Wikipedia is that it is hierarchical. It has been suggested that this principle does not apply in Simple English. If this is so can someone point me to where it was decided?

I think that Simple English is concerned with words. People who speak other languages dont need the encyclopedia to be structured differently. Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that categories are not hierarchical? - Except for possibly the parent of all category, each category has at least one parent.Mathematically speaking, this makes them a graph, and not a tree. You'll find all of what was discussed either on this page (or its archives), or the guideline on Categories, or its talk page. Eptalon (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to start a discussion arising from Category:Settlements by country, which I think should be sub categories of Category:Geography by country. I was told that " we don't categorize them that way here. We use the geography categories for physical geography only." The guideline doesnt seem to support that position. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this encyclopedia is supposed to be for the readers. However, we are accumulating large lists, such as at Family and Unit of time, that are mainly just a place to play around. Can we remove these? Lights and freedom (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that in Family, we should just keep known terms for relationships and remove all else. I have added a topic in the article explaining what terms we could keep, and others we should remove. Angerxiety 02:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the entire Closeness section can be deleted. It can always be recreated in part from the history if needed. None of the terms such as Degree of

relationship or Coefficient of relationship are defined. They are complex not simple. Most of the relationships are not commonly used. Likewise the List of units of time should be reduced to only the linked or well-described units. Simple is the only result for "icosofortnight" those are all baloney. --Gotanda (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like an IP added all of the junk terms in a couple of different batches. Fairly meaningless - I'm going to start removing them. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the table at Family. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This users' signature in Talk:Family has made the following text blue. I just wanted to bring this up. Angerxiety 03:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should an ethnic group go in a category for people from that country? I'm asking because the page Wayuu was moved from Category:Colombia to Category:Colombian people. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For that particular example, probably yes. They live on a peninsula that is split between Colombia and Venezuela (I think, category in the article). Note, there's also a language... Eptalon (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in this Wikipedia, we basically have the fololwing community-driven processes:

• We do have "did you know" hooks, which should get update periodically (see here for the proposals
• We have proposals for good articles (here)
• We do have proposals for very good articles (here)

If I look at these processes, there hasn't been much movement in any of the processes; I think we have seen users leave, because their request didn't get treated. So my basic quesion: Should we keep these processes (getting something to GA; or VGAis alot of work, and there may be little appreciation). DYK hooks, which aren't a lot of work, also don't get comments. So, dear community, what should we do? Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. We need more people to participate and review the proposals. If necessary, there could be a strict deadline, like one month. If it doesn't get consensus in one month, then it would be closed, and it could be renominated later. It would be great if someone could review the DYK hooks, by the way! Also if more people would review the PGAs/PVGAs. Currently they're only getting a few responses, which doesn't show clearly whether people think they're good or not. A few PGAs could be closed (Interlingue, AGS-17). Lights and freedom (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• If we get rid of the GA and VGA, do we remove them from those statuses (with the associated changes in Wikidata)?
• It's easy to say we need more people to participate. But we have few people, and people participate in the things they're interested in. If not enough people are interested in these, then maybe we eliminate them, or maybe just put them on hiatus for a while. Conversely, maybe they need more publicity, maybe periodic reminders at Simple talk that things are outstanding.
• I've never seen much value in these, which is why I rarely participate. Besides that, I know I tend to get critical and I don't want to be shooting down people's proposals. (That's also the reason I don't patrol articles much any more.)

Just my initial thoughts. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If not enough people participate in PGA/PVGA, that doesn't mean they have to be shut down. We could just continue with the GAs/VGAs that were promoted in the past. I think that many years ago before I edited here, an article needed to have a certain number of votes within a certain time period to be promoted. If they aren't getting enough attention, the system could go back to that. I think it was something like 5 votes with 80% support to promote within a week. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think before weaddress the problem GA/VGaA,lets get the DYK up again, 1-2 dyk updates a month should be doable? Eptalon (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is still being updated once per month. However, nobody is reviewing the hooks at T:TDYK. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, they don't have to be shut down, but they can be: that's what we're discussing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to remove these. Yes it's a lot of work...but it's good to recognize that work, and to recognize the quality of articles. Activity of the processes, in my view, is not relevant. In part because it'll be difficult to get it re-started if activity levels increase. Also...the section title here was a bit scary to see on my watchlist, haha. Best, Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a reason to remove them, but changes may be in order. In most cases, the default should be "not now". If there is not enough support, oppose is the result. If the higher ups do not feel there was sufficient support to promote there should be no promotion at that time. These are "community-driven processes", there need to be community involvement. Things should not be promoted if there is only 2-3 people involved. If there is opposition, all reasonable opposition needs to be address. Not fixed, addressed - Not all opposition my be seen as valid. If after an article has been promoted for some time, if a user in good standing voices an opposition to the elevated status (multilple changes, out of date info, whatever), the article is reviewed by an upper level to determine if it is a valid complaint. A set time is given. During that time whatever (if any) changes are made to the article to correct the issue. IF at the end of that time, the issue has not been fully address (to the closing admin/b'crats satisfaction) then the article is automatically demoted. Article need not sit around for months in a state that we know is substandard. User: <article> is not good, <reasons>. Admin: <yep, anyone want to help fix it? short time passes and still not good, demote. / nope. While we respect your opinion, its fine. closed.> Obviously, if there is evidence that the needed improvements are taking place, the time limit can be expanded as needed (within reason - admin corps discretion).

  TLDR: Community-driven processes are good but need community involvement.Pure Evil (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a small community, but I cannot see a compelling reason to end these processes, per others. --IWI (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as GA and VGA proposals, I think we should follow our guidelines and close them promptly. I have tried making this point a few other places. Leaving them open for 6 months when there is little to no activity makes no sense and just raises the disappointment. Nominate, decide, renominate if needed. Make it a short simple process. The long queue of dormant nominations with no action does not make it look like an active process that one should contribute to. --Gotanda (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current practice for GA and VGA are very unorganized. What we can do is simply organize it better so that the community can better participate in these activities. What I propose is, based on my study of archives, similar to the old process that we used to have. So, here's how we can do this:

1. We divide the GA and VGA proposal and discussion into 2 phases. The first one being suggestion and improvement phase, and second one being the voting phase.
2. In the suggestion and improvement phase, we discuss whether the page meets the VGA or GA criteria or not. In this phase, we can also make suggestions on where the article can be improved, and those suggestions can be implemented or discussed. Pages that obviously fail more than 2 criteria at the end of this phase will not go to the next phase (voting phase). This phase will last for 2 weeks; one more week can be added to this if needed.
3. Once the Page passes the first phase, it enters the voting phase. In this phase, we vote on whether the page should be promoted or not. For the page to be promoted, it should at least get 3 votes, and more than 70% of those should be in favor of promoting the page. Voters who vote in this phase should at least have 100 edits on the project.
4. Once the voting phase is over, an administrator or an experienced member of the community will determine whether there is consensus to promote the page or not.

Please feel free to support/oppose or comment in the proposal below.--BRP ^ever 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support this change, but with a recommendation that articles in the voting phase be linked in a notice here to bring more community attention. --IWI (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following suggestions:

• GA first - only GAs can be promoted to VGA. Saves a lot of work, as most criteria for GA and VGA are the same
• Voting: same as everywhere else: Min. 5 valid votes, 3 in support (70% of 3 votes: 2.1, 70% of 5: 3.5 votes (-> 3/5 ,or 2/3 in support)
• Do we really want to limit it to users with at least 100 edits, don't we want something like 'votes by users with very few other edits can be disregarded')?
• Wouldn't it be reasonable to time-limit the discussion phase: e.g. 1 month?
• Nomination & start of voting to be announced on Simple Talk
• Current nominateions: they enter the discussion phase...

Eptalon (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is a good page (like demoted GA or any reasonably good page) then going through first GA nomination which takes around 3 weeks - 1 month, and going through it again to make a VGA seems long. We don't get that many nominations in the first place, so it shouldn't be very hard to quickly evaluate and filter out the poor nominations. In case in the future we get flooded with nominations, we can consider this IMO.
• I think I can agree with this voting criteria. Strictly in calculation, 70% feels like a huge bar to pass for the level of participation we get.
• For the third point: Yes, we could do that, we don't have to strictly set a number of edits as criteria.
• One month long discussion phase can be very tiring both for participant and the nominator. We recommend page to be ready to a certain degree before the nomination. So, if the page is not ready, we can just ask them to renominate once they have worked on it. Keeping the discussion running for over a month can be very boring and demotivating.
• I agree with the 5th and 6th point.

BRP ^ever 11:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support Eptalon's proposal.

• I suggest adding a criterion to both GA and VGA that the articles must be simple. I know it's already implied, but that way if it fails two criteria, it won't go to voting.
• The time for the voting period wasn't mentioned in this discussion. I think it should be limited to 1 or 2 weeks.
• I support limiting voting to users with over 100 edits.
• Will admins or experienced users need to close the discussion periods and start the voting period? That's probably better than allowing anyone to do it.

• Lastly, the discussion shouldn't be stopped by a single user if several others agree that it meets the requirements and should go to voting. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For the minimal result: 3 support out of 5 is a pass. Simply put: if I have 5 (valid) votes, it is a simple majority decision. 3 opposing -> it fails, 3 supporting -> it passes. (Same for the 3 vote case) Eptalon (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would see the minimal length at 3 weeks. 2 weeks discussion, one week vote. Once the discussion is done (and is a pass), voting should be quick and easy. A long voting period would point to problems in the discussion phase (or that an article was a pass, that should not have been). In any case, I'd say than if the whole process takes over a month, something isn't right, and the article wasn't. ready. Eptalon (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support BRPever's proposal and Eptalon's 5th and 6th points. I was going to support Eptalon's idea to make sure VGAs have to be GA first, but it would waste a bit more time and I don't think it is worth making the review time for VGAs shorter as that may make the quality of our VGAs worse. --Ferien (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ferien Only three votes? Could that be the writer of the article and two other users? If it passes in 1 week, can the writer/proposer close and promote to GA/VGA themself (even if they're not an admin/experienced user)? Lights and freedom (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Lights and freedom, I think that at least 4 separate people should be involved in the discussion/voting phase for an article, with an uninvolved admin closing it. I don't agree that it should be just 3 people, or think it's appropriate for the proposer to close the discussion. --Ferien (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd propose keeping the VGA and GA systems in place, and doing away with DYK. I think we have enough manpower to still, even if very slowly, continue the GA and VGA process. Who cares if it takes 6 months or a year. The few folks who are interested in that can continue to work towards a goal and be rewarded at the end by having a VGA. DYK is a rapid fire process that we cannot support and honestly I don't think we care to support. let's be honest this is a slow moving project and DYK is a fast moving idea. So lets keep the protects best suited for us such as GA and VGA, and ignore DYK. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  DYK is being supported. It has been updated one per month since July 2021. However, if others don't think this is useful, prior hooks could be rotated instead (or it could be removed altogether). Lights and freedom (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Without doubt DYK is fun, so if we think we can keep that up, sure let's go. I, somewhat embarrassingly, have not been active enough to keep up with how DYK is going. The initial post in this discussion makes it seem like it is also falling behind. If DYK is on track, the yeah lets keep it rolling. However if I had a choice where it was either we keep DYK or we keep GA/VGA, I'd always say GA/VGA first.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has had no comments in 12 days. In 2 days, it would have been automatically be archived by a bot. Is this a consensus or no consensus? Or does the discussion go for longer? Lights and freedom (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just adding a notice here on simple talk to announce that per community consensus, quick deletion criterion G5 (for page creations by indefinitely blocked or banned users) is reinstated. It has been added to the Twinkle gadget and can now be used to tag pages with G5. --IWI (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly moved Category:Japanese video game companies to Category:Video game companies of Japan - to match all the similar categories. Do we have a bot to move all the contents, or do I have to do that by hand?Rathfelder (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: It needs to be a category redirect, not a regular redirect. Once that's done, there might be a bot that takes care of it, but I always take care of it myself. Cat-a-lot does it nicely. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder and Auntof6: RussBot seems to be doing both of these things. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find Catalot?

And can I do moves like this without discussion if they are very clear? Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder Cat-a-lot can be found here: commons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. To install it, go to Special:MyPage/common.js and add the following:

mw.loader.using(['jquery.ui', 'mediawiki.util'], function(){
	mw.loader.load('//commons.wikimedia.org/w/load.php?modules=ext.gadget.Cat-a-lot');
});

For category redirects, the template {{category redirect}} is used. It replaces the contents of the category page. The first parameter should be the name of the new category (for example, {{category redirect|Video game companies of Japan}}) — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: If most of the existing categories are named the new way, then yes. If you're making a lot of such changes, it would be good to just let people know on this page. For example, I think we usually use names like "Fooian X" rather than "X of Foo" here. If you're doing mass changes, it would be good to discuss first. Basically, anything that changes something that's established should be discussed first so that people aren't taken by surprise. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was only thinking of cases where there is clearly an existing pattern but one or two depart from it. And actually there are lots of very clear patterns in the areas I've been working on - things related to countries mostly. Rathfelder (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Yes, I know we have a lot of cases where that can be cleaned up. For example, categories that say "by country" but which have contents that are by nationality. It doesn't help when you're looking for "United Kingdom" and the category actually says "British", or United States/American, etc.

At one point we were using nationality for cultural things and country for anything else, or something like that, but I don't know if that's still the case. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country/nationality/state/location is a minefield, especially when dealing with historical material. Those issues certainly need discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know the difference between a category redirect, and a regular redirect. Do I need to do something more to Category:Japanese video game companies? 21:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: I just took care of that one, so you can look at what I changed it to. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such thing as a visual editing sandbox? Because the WP:SAND does not allow visual editing. Try editing it, and you'll see. Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) 22:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WPchanger2011 Visual editing is allowed in your own sandbox: User:WPchanger2011/sandbox. It's not allowed in Wikipedia or Talk namespaces, so it won't work at WP:SAND. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this is appropriate for a category. Its not defined and its not obvious what it means. Rathfelder (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: Maybe the creator could clarify. If not, then I'd agree with you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The creator seems to have last been active here about a year ago. There aren't many edits... Eptalon (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a spoof category. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending this category to RfD. --Ferien (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna start the new article, title is "KUROMI'S PRETTY JOURNEY." Sparkschu Itai (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready now..... 174.27.21.219 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone home>< 174.27.21.219 (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@174.27.21.219: What, exactly, are you wanting? This is the Simple English Wikipedia and we can't change anything on the English Wikipedia. Operator873 ^connect 03:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the buired history of Xbox 180 on English Wikipedia from 2006-2008. 174.27.21.219 (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to go to the English Wikipedia and ask there. --IWI (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B**cked still. 174.27.21.219 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come back. 174.27.21.219 (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore this by saying   Done? 174.27.21.219 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone there? 174.27.21.219 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're here. However, as people said above, you need to take care of this on English Wikipedia, not here. If you are blocked on English Wikipedia, you should not be asking people to edit there for you. If you keep asking, you will also be blocked here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is too personal a topic. 174.27.21.219 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again for the last time! Restore the buired history of Xbox 180 on English Wikipedia from 2006-2008. 174.27.21.219 (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  [reply]

Dear IPs, this is simple English Wikipedia. Other than perhaps using similar language, sometimes, we don't have any connection to the English Wikipedia. So, if you want a page restored on the English Wikipedia, you need to talk to people there. We can't do much to restore a page there. Eptalon (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Xbox 720 doesn't exist though, it's the xbox one. What even? Derpdart56 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested, these three pages need to be simplified: Swissair Flight 111, Lauda Air Flight 004, China Airlines Flight 611. I noticed that they were too complex, but I'm not sure how to simplify them well. I don't know much about aviation or what are the most important aspects of those pages to keep. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to work on Swissair Flight 111. It's very technical, and also unreferenced in the main section. I don't know too much about aviation either, but I'm referencing the sources on EN about the details. Hoping to get it in a good spot. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A request for oversightership has started. You can participate here. --Ferien (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In en-wp, the level 2 warnings have the following file that have a "i" text and an orange circle, with the following image:  . Before I want to create a consensus to change color in warn templates, I'd tried to change the warning icon from blue to orange without reason/consensus and therefore my edits were reverted. That's because I thought that the orange color in level 2 warning template is better than blue color, therefore I'd changed it without consensus. Now, I'm want to gain consensus to change color in level 2 warning templates. Power Hacks (discussion) (contributions) 09:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we sometimes follow enwiki in terms of guidelines, we do not need to follow it for templates. I can't think of any reason to have the level 2 colour blue or orange, but what we have right now isn't broken so there's no need to change it in my opinion. --Ferien (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the color orange is still more stronger in terms of warning than color blue in level 2 warning, and therefore I still need to change it to orange. Power Hacks (discussion) (contributions) 12:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that inevitably happens almost every other year, and has consistently been reverted by multiple editors (see history). There is no particular reason to have it either blue or orange, but it has started off as blue (and I should mention that the template on EN started off as blue too, before changing to orange in 2013), and the community in general has not really found it necessary to change it to orange. Is there a particular reason it cannot be orange? No, but it should be discussed considering the past objections we have had. For that matter, does it "need" to be changed to orange as you suggested ("I still need to change it...")? The answer is no, too. Chenzw  Talk  16:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the colorblind, but if you have a "white background", the "light blue" is difficult to read. The orange is a bit better, but not much. Think about visually impaired people (they don't see well). What they need is something with a high contrast. We might also want to try with different backgrounds, keeping in mind that the message should be easy to read... Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Level 1 tells users that their changes were not helpful. Maybe they didn't know that when they made the changes. Level 2 tells them to stop making such changes. I sometimes start with level 2 when it's obvious why their changes were bad. So, when leaving the first warning, I think blue is better than orange. It seems less aggressive, so they don't feel that they're being attacked. They are just being told to stop. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see need for a change for the icon colours and I think we are fine with where we are. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 20:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it should remain blue because we don't want to come on too strong with an orange warning colour (which is clearly a stronger message than blue) on only the second warning. --IWI (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple-English Wikipedia is supposed to be simple in the sense that it is easy to read and understand. The use of unexplained abbreviations works against this goal. I'm sorry, but I do not know what IP stands for. It is used a lot on various Wikipedias, but it is not something that is in common use in general English. Why should I or any other editor who doesn't know or remember what it means have to go searching around to find its meaning? Please, when you use abbreviations, "translate" them in the first occurrence. Kdammers (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: Yes, "translating" or linking them would be good. For articles, our manual of style addresses this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. We might not stick to that as much in administrative pages, because people working there are more likely to know them, but feel free to ask any time you want it explained. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP is a common term, and should be linked. If I take the technospeak further, people using it are talking about "DNSSec", not "Domain Name System Security Extensions" (in our wiki I made one redirect to the other). DNSSec is a protocol that allows to verify that the DNS ("Domain name system") entry you are getting is actually the one submitted by the holder of the domain. It makes (government-imposed) DNS redirects much harder. Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does "IP" stand for? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:2526:A832:DFB8:B285 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in the context of cxomputer science: internet protocol, but i think it can also stand for intelelectual property... Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably seeing 'IP' used to talk about users that only have a set of numbers in their name (their IP address). These are IP users - people that have not made an account on Wikipedia. IP stands for 'Internet Protocol'. I think the abbreviation is fine to use by itself, because 'internet protocol' doesn't add much to the term, and using it adds complex words to what is being said. 🤘🤘DovahFRD (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And depending on the context, it might be less confusing to call them unregistered users. Even the term "Internet Protocol" is not simple. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but IP is pretty common usage around the internet. What the abbreviation means is less relevant than what the term 'IP address' refers to, in most contexts. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it might be in pretty common use on the WWW does not mean editors on Simple Wikipedia know it. Furthermore, if a word is pretty common, it is easy to look it up, whereas looking up abbreviations can be a log slog. And then to see that it stands for 'internet protocol,' which makes no sense in sentences I often see here. I support Auntof6's suggestion of replacing 'IP'with 'unregistered user'.Kdammers (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we could replace "IP user" with "unregistered user". "IP" by itself doesn't mean a user. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have fewer TLAs. Including here. Please dont assume other editors understand the abbreviations you use.Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of our articles and categories use Health care as two words and some Healthcare as one word. In the outside world there is clearly no agreement about which is right, and no obvious pattern for the different uses, but I think writers in the field mostly use one word. Can we agree to standardize on Healthcare? Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's agreement, and you change it, can you do a category redirect? - Off-hand I couldn't tell you which of the two is more common. Eptalon (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is decided, it should normally be lower case, unless at the beginning of a sentence, part of the name of something, or for some other grammatical reason. -- Auntof6 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Ngram, "health care" used to be much more common in books, but now "healthcare" is surpassing it.[1] Lights and freedom (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The words are more readable when kept separate. It is not a term but a normal construction of two words IMO. Knocking words together makes them more difficult to read. That is significant for us. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But consistency is also important in Simple English. I am only proposing a change to the names of categories, not to the content of articles. Rathfelder (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just made this page H₂weh₁-yú and I'm not sure if its simple enough. It's often hard to figure out if an article is simple enough since I'm still a beginner here. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least, "originate" and "derive" should be simplified. MathXplore (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Absolutely agree. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He started in .. and many .. gods like him? Eptalon (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A notice that I am proposing a change to the deletion policy here to reword the A4 quick deletion criterion. Thanks, --IWI (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With two weeks left in the Feminism and Folklore contest, I'm pleased to announce that contestant user:DovahFRD is in the lead with a focus on the performing arts. But perhaps user:Haoreima, user:Aidar254 or user:Lights_and_freedom will sweep in from behind! Who knows what will happen?! Remember, everyone, what happens at edit-a-thon stays at edit-a-thon. Permanently. We can go back and read the posts any time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As described on WP:AN, there is a user creating articles using ChatGPT. This can cause problems, as ChatGPT is not always accurate, and it may appear accurate to people who are not experts in the subject. Should there be a guideline against using LLMs (large language models) to create articles? Justarandomamerican (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restate what I also wrote on the other board: If one of the edit I deleted today was written by ChatGPT, then these are fairly easy to detect. They can then be deleted. In the past, editors have been blocked for continuing to do "automatic edits". So if they come from specific editors, these can be blocked easily. Perhaps a bit more technical: these bots are trained using specific models. Changing the model means that the bot will have to undergo re-training, in most cases. So far, I have not seen a bot that is capable of producing "Simple English" as we require. I also currently think that the "market value" of Simple English is too small to warrant specific training or parametrization. So, likely there won't be any need to take specific actions in the future (other than what we already do: Block problem editors, if they continue their problematic behaviour). Eptalon (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't {{Wiktionary redirect}} link to Simple English Wiktionary instead of English Wiktionary? I think this can be changed by changing "wiktionary:" to "wikt:", but I don't know what's best practice with these interwiki shortcuts. Lights and freedom (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this (simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lights_and_freedom&oldid=8735684) be moved here, or to some other talk page?--(Wherever the discussion ends, I might want to mention a view about China or China-of-today being within China proper will perhaps not be mentioned by me/myself.) 2001:2020:4329:FC62:7CF0:5311:1C74:331D (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:4329:FC62:7CF0:5311:1C74:331D (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has multiple issues. See Wikipedia:Proposed_article_demotion#Ronald_Reagan Gotanda (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently started a new WikiProject called WikiProject Red to Blue (User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky/WikiProject Red to Blue is the link). This WikiProject aims to fix redlinks on Wikipedia and turn them into articles, and also maintain and expand these articles to gradually seal the information gap on Simple English Wikipedia. I was wondering if some of y'all would be interested in checking it out, so I decided to post about it on this board.

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to translate Greatest Generation into Simple English. Born from 1901 to 1927, these people grew up during hard times of the Great Depression and World War II, yet became very successful later in life, and had a huge influence on world culture and politics. Most of them have died already, but some still survive. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, I didn't do the best job simplifying the article, so it would be great if others are interested in helping! Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably too complex and could use work there. Besides this issue, it may be too focused on the US, but that is a consequence of the enwiki article. Lights and freedom (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claim, the phrase seems to be entirely North American or even U.S. in usage. I have never heard it before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps it's just a US thing. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a US thing. Mostly comes from NBC Nightly News Tom Brokaw. And very on-brand for the US to call one cohort "The Greatest." --Gotanda (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A typical American-centered term which is never used in Europe. The period of WWI was a complete disaster for Europe, and the 1920s which followed it were full of social, political and economic strife. the 1920s saw the rise of Hitler, and that was not an accident. WWI was played out in France and Germany. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget people such as Stalin. The people that were born in the early 20th century were also those fighting in the Second World War. The "Greatness" of the generation was probably that they lost pretty much everything they had; if they survived the war, they had to rebuild their country, because there was no other choice. For the Eastern part of Europe, Spain, and Portugal, there were also some totalitarian regimes that established themselves. So, yes, the term "Greatest Generation" is definitely an American one. Eptalon (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the unqualified phrase is quite objectionable from at least the European point of view. I suggest we add U.S. to the title, so that it reads "Greatest Generation (U.S.)". Don't forget that WWI was fought almost entirely in continental Europe. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross Okay, that sounds reasonable. I moved the page to Greatest Generation (U.S.). Lights and freedom (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm aware, when it comes to article names, we typically follow en in most cases. I do not see why this case would be any different, just because some of our editors haven't heard the term. I don't think there is any specific wording in our own MOS that would cover this, however I think following EN would be correct in this case. This is about a specific topic. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any other use case here that would require any disambiguation. Until we have Greatest Generation (U.K.), Greatest Generation (Canada), Greatest Generation (Spain) ect there is absolutely no need for this. If we need disambiguation we can create it. But it just doesn't exist. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've undone the move because it is so wrong. That's all there is to it. It is baseless.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I agree with the reversion, the article should not be moved there even if it was only an American term. There is no justification under the Manual of Style for such a move. --IWI (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you can out-vote me, but that doesn't mean I am wrong. Much of WP is American-biased and insensitive to other cultures. This is a good example. The 1920s was an absolutely terrible time in Europe, both economically and politically. If you don't want to change the title, then you should not suggest that the term applies in UK, Germany, Russia or Japan. If what you want is a history of pre-1940 countries who took part in WWII then this is not the way to approach it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Macdonald-ross: But we would add "(U.S.)" to the end if the title needed disambiguating from other uses for the phrase. Since that is not the case here, it's not clear how the move is necessary. I am not opposed, however, to making it more clear in the article that it is mainly an American term. Best, --IWI (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as there's no article giving the European (or Russian, or Japanese) perspective, there's no need to add a disambiguation. I do however insist that form the article it needs to be clear that the article gives a mainly U.S. perspective. Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eptalon: Agreed. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the late addition. Yes I fully agree that it should be mentioned in the article that this term is used mostly in the USA. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is not just that the phrase only relates to the USA. It is really critical that WWII happened because WWI caused the destruction of so much of Western Europe. Only the entrance of Japan needs specially different treatment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]