Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 122

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

First, here is the description of this option (italics mine):

Author wants deletion. Any page whose original author wants deletion, can be quickly deleted, but only if most of the page was written by that author and was created as a mistake. If the author blanks the page, this can mean that he or she wants it deleted.

Notes:

• This option only applies if the page was created by mistake. I keep seeing pages where an author creates an article that looks reasonably good, then blanks it, then another editor tags it for QD under G7.
• The description says that blanking can mean that an author wants a page deleted, not that it automatically means that.

First, I think that G7 requests should usually be made only by the creating editor. Second, many of these articles, even if blanked by the creator, were not created by mistake, and therefore don't qualify for this option. If you see an article that was blanked by its creator, it might be better to just unblank it, and possibly request QD under a different option if there's one that applies.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the author wants deletion, anfd shows this, by blanking; we delete. For most pages, re-creating with new content is simple. As to someone else noticing a blank page, and tagging it with G7 , or no cotent, or similar; thats just putting up the flag: look this page needs deletion. --Eptalon (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, if someone nominates a page QD under G7, it should only be done if the author is the only user who has contributed to the page. If anyone else has worked on it, G7 should be rejected and it should be referred to RFD. Once other users have added to the work, blanking it is then vandalism. I don't know how you can create a page "by mistake". The only concievable way I think is if you misspell the title, or need to reword it, then it's a case to move the page, not delete it. DaneGeld (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the rule is that "most of the page was written by that author". Other ways one could create a page by mistake are creating it here instead of on enwiki, doing a move where something goes haywire, or accidentally saving when you were just testing something (I've done that). Not saying those happen often, though. Maybe some tweaking is needed for this rule. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't quantify what a mistake is (it is usually taken to mean anything they created they didn't like after creating it), in their opinion it might have been a mistake so really if they blank it and they are the only true "content" editor of the page it gets deleted. Someone just adding a template to a page that is later blanked wouldn't not stop a deletion for example. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, using the word mistake is just a bad simplification of the en.wiki version. If you look at the en.wiki version, it is anything mistake or not that the only substantial editor blanked. See: "If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.[4]) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request." -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must have changed something in a module or template somewhere, because all I see now are module errors in {{reflist}}. For example, in The Hateful Eight, I see: "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3398: bad argument #1 to 'ipairs' (table expected, got nil)." That should be a citation to afi.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seeing that error on pretty much all pages here, since this morning. I tried to look and I couldn't see any changes, regarding any of the citation templates, and/or the module. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed: {@NinjaRobotPirate: I solved the issue, apparently that error message was kind of misleading. But thankfully thanks to the {{Cite encyclopedia}} template, I was able to narrow it down to the actual offending Module being Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities, which an anon vandalized one line. Which caused all of this problems. Though I thought modules were protected against anon users from creating them or modifying them and only allowed autoconfirmed users. I could be wrong however. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarkcj12: Thanks! I just permanently semiprotected that module. We might want to do the same with any others that are "highly visible" like that one, although some folks might want to discuss whether we should. In the meantime, if anyone wants to point me to a place where I can learn Lua for free, I'd appreciate it. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just permanently semiprotected the main module and the other submodules of the citation module. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion (permalink as of today) on en.wiki about semi-protecting template space because of persistent vandalism. Unfortunately, I never really bothered to learn Lua, though I guess I probably should. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I typically protect the high use ones. But I haven't been on the bunch I have imported lately. I will update when I get time the new templates/modules I have imported/updated that are high use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing a lot of edits that are just changing images back and forth, almost as if someone is trying to increase their edit count. It seems to me that image selection criteria should be that the image shows the subject well and is as recent as possible (at least where that makes sense, as with living people). Has anyone else seen this? If/when we get our infoboxes sufficiently tied to Wikidata, maybe we can just use the designated image from there instead of hardcoding images in infoboxes. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really seen it. I do try to use the most recent, however, really the best image should be used so that isn't always the most recent. To be honest when it comes to pictures I hope we don't just use the wikidata ones because I find I like having the variety alot of the times compared to the ones on en. Not that I don't use the same as them often as well. -DJSasso (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen it really, the only time I really use images is when copying over an infobox from en.wiki. Sometimes I remove an image already on the page because its already in the infobox to prevent a duplicate image. Also sometimes I remove it because adding an infobox and the current layout of the article having image could pose accessibility problems. And make the article harder to read. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is a single editor changing the image in an infobox back and forth. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want to make draft articles at User:LauraHale/2018 Winter Paralympics. I would like to put them in the main space before the Games. I just have not written much on Simple English Wikipedia. Once I start writing, is there an administrator who could look at the drafts to make sure I have written them using Simple English? The last time I wrote a lot on Simple English, I had a problem of using making them too difficult or making long sentences to write information using simpler wording. --LauraHale (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laura. Welcome back to Simple English Wikipedia. If you need an administrator, you could ask at WP:AN, but I don't think you need an admin for this. You just need someone who is reasonably good at writing in simple language.

Your list is pretty long, so it might be hard to have them all checked before the Games. (I'm assuming they will be held right after the Olympic Games that just started: is that right?) Maybe you could write a couple as a sample of what you have in mind. Then someone could comment on those, and you could take those comments into account when creating the others. How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to help, @LauraHale:. When do you think you'll finish? hiàn 02:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not started yet. I just did not want to make a lot of work that needed to be fixed because of writing issues. The articles should be pretty short. If it was going to be an problem, I wanted to know as not a big deal but I would not spend a lot of time on it. --LauraHale (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6:, User:LauraHale/United States of America at the 2018 Winter Paralympics is a first draft of what I will probably add before the start of the Games. Does that look okay? --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LauraHale: May I make a few changes that I think would simplify it? It also needs a bit of copy editing. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6:, Please do. I will look at your edits afterwards to model other articles after them. I am also unsure sometimes what to put. Because few articles exist for most sportspeople, I want to add basic biography information to some sport specific sections. It seems better than creating a short article, where I would have to show people are notable. --LauraHale (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. There are one or two places that I think could be worded better: I'll give you detail on them later, but for now here are a couple of comments about some of the changes I made:

• I changed "United States of America" to just "United States" because the full name is usually not used.
• In one place, I divided a sentence not only to make shorter sentences, but also to reword it so that the date wasn't at the start of the sentence. (Sentences shouldn't start with digits, so since you're using dmy dates they can't go at the beginning.)
• Speaking of date formats, since this article is about a US topic, it should probably use dmy dates.)

That's all for now. Do you have any questions about what I changed? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about dates as they are about the USA. Did not realize sentences should not start with numbers. The edits all make sense. Your advice was very helpful. :) I hope this time editing, I do a much better job than I did in the past. I had modeled the first sentence after Denmark at the 1972 Summer Paralympics. I will change the first sentence wording on the rest of the articles too. Thank you very much for your help. :) I hope I don't need it as much with the rest of the articles I am writing. :) --LauraHale (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also North Korea is probably close to being done and ready for the main space. There is not much more information that can be added before the Games start. --LauraHale (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to disambiguate pages linking to Caucasian. The two most appropriate links would be either Caucasian race or White people. Which link would be most appropriate to use and what are the differences between the two? --Eurodyne (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurodyne: Not all Caucasians are white—e.g. Indians. These historical racial categories are not entirely accurate or even intelligible sometimes but Indo-Aryan peoples are descended from northern India and so the racial and ethnic theories from the 19th century that lead to terms like "Caucasians" and "white people" include Middle Easterners and South Asians who have some very dark skin tones as well as some light-skinned peoples who are geographically nowhere near the Caucasus mountains. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is probably widely used, the term is highly problematic because of its racist connotations. --Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, this morning I found the page Simon the Canaean. This page has a big problem of lacking sources (Yes, there are biblical ones). Simon Zelotes (whom we are talking about here) looks like one of the more obscure personalities of scripture; for this reason, adding real sources would probably be great. Thanks for helping. --Eptalon (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate input on my query posted at Wikipediatalk:Guide to layout#Other optional section headings. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. One piece of advice is to use few compound sentences. I have been diligently trying to do that. I have also been reading articles on Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples to model my writing after. A lot of the articles use lots of compound sentences, and words that do not look that simple. Is there any advice on how to do this particular aspect of writing well? --LauraHale (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the articles here are not written simply enough. There are different reasons for that. Some article creators are not sufficiently familiar with how to write simply. Some don't understand what this wiki is supposed to be about, and write what they think is simple. Some articles get copied directly from English Wikipedia (or translated directly from other languages) without being simplified: we deal with those when we catch them, but we don't catch them all. Even some of our good and very good articles aren't as simple as they could be. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling like a bit of a disaster with doing tables. The first use is supposed to be linked? Does that apply for the lead, but not the body? Or does the time in the lead not count? What about tables? Can I link multiple times in a table? Are red links a good thing or a bad thing? --LauraHale (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We had a recent discussion about linking. You can find it at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_121#Which_to_link?. There is actually a guideline against links in section headings. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules for capitalizing in tables? Should "male" be capitalized if it is the only thing in the cell? I can fix a lot of the problems I am creating. I just don't always feel familiar with how things should be written. There are fewer people who are randomly going to clean up my bad writing and formatting on Simple English Wikipedia. I would rather do it right the first time.--LauraHale (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I deal with events that occur in the future? I keep writing them in the past tense, but that seems wrong. I've switched to the present tense but I am not sure that is any better.  :( It's been a bit since I have done a lot of serious editing on Wikipedia of this kind and just overwhelmed with the desire to do things right, fear of messing up and creating lots of work for admins. I really want to get the articles I am working on into a good place because I love the topic. --LauraHale (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LAuraHale;what I am telling you now is not necessarily in the manual of style, but also useful: Links in section headings look awful, and should (in my opinion) be avoided. The same applies to the heading rows of tables. As to compound sentences: When you use them, it is (in my opinion) important that the two parts of the ompound belong together. Also, an article should be easy to understand. This does not necessarily imply that you avoid compund sentences, or that you don't use the shorter form of the negation; it is more about thinking about the audience: There is a fire extinguisher, so extinguishing a fire is probably easier to understand than putting out a fire (Don't you also put out the trash once a week?). As to capitalization, follow whatever rule you like, but try to always do it the same way. From what I see I would more expect it to be lowercase, than uppercase (it is one attribute of an athlete, along with weight, age, and height). Making it uppercase in a table cell might give it more weight, which it probably does not need. --Eptalon (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS says no links in headings. I think it's an accessibility issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful writing about future events. In some cases, you can word them in a way that works both before and after the event. Can you give an example of an article where this was/is an issue? Also, keep in mind that admins are not the only people who can help with this, or who evaluate new articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English has a clear rule about capitalisation, which is: apart from the first word in a sentence, only proper nouns take upper case [=are spelt with a capital letter]. In French even fewer capitals are used: they write "musée d'Orsay" where we write "Museum of London". You can see I'm right by going to the French page from our (incorrect) page. In German, every noun takes upper case (is capitalised). For comprehension, see our readability. I knew the world's leading expert on this topic, and can guarantee its soundness! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But when writing a paper, some style guides have you capitalizing most words in section headings. Others have you only capitalizing the first word. Some do not use periods ever in sentences. Some use periods when you get to heading level 3. The rules get confusing in non-standard use cases. The style guide does not say much about capitalization in tables. I did not recall seeing anything about headings. I have removed some of the capital letters for generic use words in the tables, and trying to make sure I do first letter of the first word capitalized in headers unless there is a proper noun. --LauraHale (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If the rule gets confusing after a time, do what you think is right; most of us are pragmatics, having a well-written article, that doesn't follow all rules to the letter is better than having a badly written one that is rule-compliant. --Eptalon (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP housetyle guidelines for titles, sections and subsections are as follows:

"A mixed-case style in which the first word of the sentence is capitalised, as well as proper nouns and other words as required by a more specific rule. This is generally equivalent to the baseline universal standard of formal English orthography". Basically, this says the only words with upper case (capital) initials are the first word and any proper nouns. We follow these WP guidelines.

Example given: "Section headings follow the same guidance as article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects) not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my Original account and I have been blocked by Wikipedia and accused of being a sock puppet and when I tried to appeal the blocking the administrator just shrugged it of and I was blocked for nothing I had done wrong so I just decided to make a new account but then this was blocked as well for using the same IP address (which I could have no control over) so I fell unjustly blocked from making any edits even though I have done nothing wrong and was just strait up blocked without proper reasoning or explaination.

Finding and undoing this recent vandalism on Israel by this IP user, I saw so much related activity on User talk:85.119.104.126 for last month and this - I didn't know what action is appropriate at this point. And - for that matter, I didn't know whether this is the right place to bring it to Admins' attention, vs. where? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deborahjay. An administrator has now blocked the IP for a week. The best place to bring up these problems in future is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. That IP pulled the same appalling behaviour at English Wikipedia and has been on six month block since 14 September 2017 [1]. The IP was recently blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for two years [2]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the simple wiki should opt into allowing global sysops here, in an effort to reduce long response times when our admins are offline? Just gathering thoughts. _{Vermont | reply here} 02:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not allow global sysops to do things here now? The only issue I can think of is that there are some things we do differently here that could look like vandalism if you aren't familiar with them. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our wiki is automatically opted out, since it is considered a large wiki. Global sysops have regular rights here. hiàn 03:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our wiki might be automatically opted out, since it is a large wiki, but however we do have few active admins on here, same with bureaucrats. As @Vermont: said, but I also do have to agree with @Auntof6:. But we should do however is find some new people to add to the admin team. Which I feel if we do might help the wiki become more active again, and help keep things up to speed. We don't have the problems as en.wiki as our backlog doesn't get usually too big. We currently only have 1,602 active users, and 16 admins only of which I feel only a few admins I have seen have been active. Such as Auntof6 that I can think of off hand at the moment. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that on the one hand you think we should "find some new people to add to the admin team", but on the other hand when there was a recent discussion about adding more admins, a statement was made that we have enough admins for our size. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly say "we have enough". We have a good size, however if an editor RFA'd and was qualified, clueful, and competent, I wouldn't see anything barring me from opposing. Especially now, I've noticed that things aren't taken care of as swiftly as they used to; some vandalism remains unnoticed and LTA cases sit stale at VIP. Another admin or two definitely wouldn't hurt, but we're also not in a dying need. --Eurodyne (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I sometimes leave the LTA stuff. That's because I was told I don't handle it appropriately, and because I don't know how to identify LTA for myself (I consider it the admin's responsibility to verify that it's LTA, rather than take the reporting editor's word for it). --Auntof6 (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that VIP reports will sit for many hours before they're handled. This comment is obviously not meant to bash the current admins here - they do an incredible job. I do agree though that the ratio of administrators to the size that this project has grown is starting to show its dis-proportionality. I would say this in general, but I feel that "we have enough admins" isn't a legitimate reason to oppose anyone's RFA (that's my opinion though). If the user is qualified and the project would benefit from them having the tools, why would you oppose? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most VIP reports that sit are because the admins don't want to block that particular editor. I know I often leave reports sitting there that aren't worth blocking, but don't feel strongly enough to outright reject the block request. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we admins need to leave notes when we do that, just so that people know that someone has seen the report. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true, I am just lazy and rarely edit the requests on that page. I am often dealing with things during the work day so tend to only have a minute here and there to do things. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting for "hours" isn't that unreasonable, especially when the reported user isn't actively vandalizing, as is often the case. (FYI, there are also times when I'm online and see a vandalism spree underway and stop it before it gets very far.) We could double the number of admins and still have times when none of them happened to be online to see a report. And I didn't say that anyone opposed an RFA because they thought there were enough admins: it was a general discussion, not an actual RFA. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, people think that every editor placed at VIP should be blocked. But it is only for actively vandalizing editors. If they haven't edited in more than 5 minutes, they probably don't need to be blocked anymore. People always forget that. That is why its called Vandalism in Progress. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure - If they're not actively vandalizing or if you feel the block should be handled by a different admin, that's totally fine and I understand. I'm not trying to imply anything against how you handle VIP reports by saying that they sit for awhile - I'm just making an observation and asking whether or not this is attributed to the ration of admins to project size is all :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know you aren't criticizing how they are handled. I am just pointing out that while people see things sitting there for awhile it doesn't mean they are things that need to be acted on. That page is mainly meant for stuff that is happening so fast right now right this minute that maybe an admin who is online hasn't noticed so that if you post there an admin who has it on their watchlist might see it faster. But it is often treated as a page to report all vandalism, which isn't really its purpose. Its mainly meant to get eyes on vandals who are going crazy right this moment. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oshwah on this. If someone RfA's, and it's certain they would use admin tools for the good of the wiki, they should be accepted. We can never have too much help on small wikis like this, where the vandals outnumber the good faith editors. _{Vermont | reply here} 11:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that global sysops should be allowed to block vandals for a short period. Vandals are vandals in any project and any help to stop them should be welcome. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think we would turn away a good candidate, we most certainly can have too many admins, we were in that position a couple years ago and it caused a never ending amount of problems. We have finally managed to work our way down to a smaller admin base that is more appropriate for our approximately 20 active users. (And I mean active in the real world sense, not active in the stats page sense where if you make an edit in a very large time frame you are active). Our only real issue right now is getting our vandal bot back up. I have contacted Chenzw again because unfortunately the repo for the bot is no longer there so I can't just create one myself without a whole lot of time put into it. If he doesn't get back to me soon I will work on getting another bot back up. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little note on the bot. Zppix and I are working on one. (It's kind of been on hold for the past few months, I'll get back to working on it). _{Vermont | reply here} 12:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have started and stopped a few times since the bot stopped working. I keep thinking about working to get the code for one of the good ones from en. But it requires a whole lot more setup that I really feel like doing to get it started. I have no problem hosting and running one, its just the setup that is crazy. ChenzwBot was simplier from what I recall but the original code it was based off of has disappeared from the net and I am not sure if Chenzw had his version of the code stored anywhere on the net anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to try and contact the ClueBot devs? I tried back in November, and didn't get much of an answer. Perhaps you being a bureaucrat here could help. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the big one I refer to with the crazy setup. I will look at getting a hold of them if I don't hear anything in the next week or so, I just pinged Chenzw on his talk page again just incase he didn't see my earlier email a couple weeks ago. Its the gathering of good and bad edits for Cluebot to create its "intellegence" of what is good and bad that I don't look forward to. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're 51% done gathering good and bad edits. See User:Vermont/WikiProject Revitalize. Go to the list of stuff to do. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Vandalism isn't so bad here we need people not from this wiki handling things. People often mention wait times, but you have to remember not only do we have a small editing base we also have a small viewing base. As such waiting a few hours for something to be taken care of is not an issue here because its unlikely to be seen in that time. If anything we have only just recently finally got to the appropriate amount of admins for a wiki this size. We had much to many for quite awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. This wiki is very different from others, and there is a chance that global sysops could disrupt rather than help. _{Vermont | reply here} 12:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree ... there is a chance that global sysops could disrupt rather than help. I can serve as an example. I have edited in over 300 projects of Wikipedia Foundation and over 100 of them I have administrative actions, blocking or deleting pages. DARIO SEVERI (talk)

@Vermont and Djsasso: Did chenzw go inactive or something? I think you can just email him and ask him for the source code for chenzw bot? That's what I did and he gave it to me. Computer Fizz (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bit late to the party. He is back. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mentioning Global Sysops as I remember waiting almost 3 hours yesterday morning for this, and I remember seeing this global sysop helping rollback the editis. I checked the metawiki page on global sysops, and we are automatically opted out since we have more than 10 admins, and more than 3 active admins. I think we should opt in to this. When discussing our vandal problem on IRC yesterday, I had the idea to make a user permission to allow trusted anti-vandal users to lock an IP address from editing for one hour, to allow time for an administrator to come online in case there are none (like yesterday morning, #cvn-simplewikis was almost flooded). I know that many of you will heavily oppose this, but please realize that there are a lot of problems with vandalism on this wiki, especially after ChenzwBot stopped running. A few examples to backup my claims. This diff, obvious blatant vandalism, left on that page for two days until I saw a newer blatant vandalism edit on the IRC CVN channel. This diff, left on this page for two days as well. This isn't just a little problem. The vandalism on both diffs I linked were in the lead. Take a look here. Almost 4 thousand people went to that article in the period of when the vandalism was made and when it was reverted. This is not just dealing with petty vandalism. This is hurting the reputation of this wiki. _{Vermont | reply here} 10:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing global sysops wouldn't have solved either of those edits because they can already revert vandalism if they were watching. It doesn't take admin powers to undo vandalism. And yes this is a little problem, it is in fact a tiny problem here. This particular topic is most often brought up by those who want to play wikipedia like a video game smashing the vandals but don't do any of the actual work of the wiki in creating content. And allowing non-admins to lock IPs addresses is most definitely a non-starter. If someone wants to be an admin then run to be an admin, we don't just give out admin tools as an end run around actually becoming an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, rather than allowing global admins, would we not be better opening up and looking for local administrators? More locally would help to fill the holes when the US contingent aren't here. DaneGeld (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be aware, of our active admins only 3 of us are from North America I believe. Almost all of our admins are from Europe with a couple in Asia and one in Australia I believe. That being said our doors are always open for people to nominate others for admin. But I agree if people think there is a need the real solution is more. That being said I am not even sure there is much of a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if there is a need for more sysops but the solution should be found here. Global Sysops are very few and there are more than a hundred projects that do not have sysops which need them more urgently than here. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely a good point as well, something I had not thought of. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello all, I don't think we need global sysops here; there are enough admins, and except for a situation where oversight is required, no fast action is needed. Gerally, QD requests are handled within a day. --Eptalon (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1, Eptalon. -Barras talk 04:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox video game}} pulls its images from wikidata when available, however on pages such as The Last of Us its breaking things. Anyone more familiar with templates/Lua able to take a look? Nunabas (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images break because these images are not uploaded to commons - they are available only on enwiki under fair use (which this wiki does not allow). I will remove the code that is retrieving the image property from wikidata. Chenzw  Talk  15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those files are on commons. I suspect its because there are multiple results in wikidata. Nunabas (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, looks like I was too hasty here - that is indeed the case, and the below would have been an alternative to the previous implementation:

{{#invoke:wd|property|linked|Q1986744|P18}}

...that is, if the module was actually functional on this wiki. Chenzw  Talk  16:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can make it so, give me a few. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above is another mistake, that code worked while trying to figure out the syntax in the EN sandbox; to retrieve only the filename (without the module trying to be helpful and give you a link instead) would entail:

{{#invoke:wd|property|raw|Q1986744|P18|format=%p}}

...where Q1986744 is the Wikidata ID for the article concerned (The Last of Us). --Chenzw  Talk  16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of surprised that en.wiki doesn't have this problem when our code is a copy of theirs. They must have a template somewhere that we missed that is doing it. Oh well works now.-DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• another case of template based images is {{Infobox Canton}} See Geneva (canton) for an example. Nunabas (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are going to find this is common here, sometimes its on purpose as a way for us to know what needs to be created in terms of map templates. (Though that isn't the case with this one). -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This one was just an outdated infobox on the page. When in doubt grab values from en.wiki for infoboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an admin to take care of that request? Nunabas (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nunabas: If you need admin action, you should post at WP:AN. However, I can't tell exactly what you're asking for. Please make your request on the Admins' noticeboard (linked above). There is this Check Wikipedia page that might be relevant. I check it fairly regularly, but anyone else can also check it.

In future, please don't create talk pages when the main page doesn't exist, but I will leave this one until your request is resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are talking about Tracking categories? I had red links when I created Belarus at the 2018 Winter Paralympics. It was because there was no language category. (I think. They are all blue now.) --LauraHale (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the link I pointed to on that page was slightly off, en:MediaWiki:Cite_error_refs_without_references_category should be copied to MediaWiki:Cite_error_refs_without_references_category which will allow us to find articles missing reference sections without having to rely on a third party tool that parses the database dumps. to put it simply I need someone to copy en:MediaWiki:Cite_error_refs_without_references_category and save it at MediaWiki:Cite_error_refs_without_references_category. This will then allow us to fill in categories here to figure out what pages are missing reference sections. Nunabas (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I imported it, but it looks blank. Is there something that needs to be done to activate it? Please let us know how to use this. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure if this functionality is really active? Apollo 1 rightfully belongs in that category, but it isn't. The corresponding category on EN is empty too, and I doubt that they are doing such a good job with the backlog. Chenzw  Talk  12:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have a feeling this was deprecated on en a long time ago in favour of the 3rd party tool. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template Template:Infobox animanga/Header or one of its subtemplates (I can't tell) is forcibly creating categories in the year manga structure amongst others. See this or this for examples. I'm not sure whether it's better to manually create categories like Category:2011 manga and other manga by year but I think we'd be better off if the templates copied from other wikis didn't forcibly create categories here. Could someone take a look at the structure of it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys? I've gone through the history of Simple Wikipedia and I bumped into Simple News. It's next issue was to be on April 2011(about 7 years ago when I was in Grade 4) but that never happened. As a young user of simp.wikipedia,I suggest that we should work together and revive Simple News so as to inform ourselves on what's going around the wiki. We don't want to be depending only on en.Wikipedia's news or Tech news all the time,isn't it? Lets be fresh and become updated. Thank you :-) --DJ Perez (✉ - ✔) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still in incubator? --LauraHale (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple news is not in incubator: we don't have an incubator here. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope,[[3]] this simple news --DJ Perez (✉ - ✔) 04:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Okay. So more like English Wikipedia's Signpost. :) --LauraHale (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is feasible. The Signpost over at en.wiki has a large, active community that's willing to help, while we have a smaller community already working quite hard all over the wiki. Let's not spread ourselves too thin and instead focus on content creation and anti-vandalism rather than meta-affairs. hiàn 04:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Hiàn. --Eurodyne (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it hasn't been done in a long time because we could never get enough people to work on it....we only have between 20-30 truely active editors on the entire wiki. It's just not really needed here and can't be maintained. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the deletion log for the page Longan and while most if the deletions have been because the page was complete vandalism, I see one case (on January 18, 2018) where the article was deleted because it was an unsimplified version of the regular English Wikipedia article. I would like to simplify that version of the page; would anyone be able to restore it? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could restore it, but it was really an exact copy of the enwiki article, even having some things in plain text that are links in the original. It would be better to start with a new copy of the enwiki article. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Has this group ever tried to get together something like w:WP:1.0? If not, would anyone be interested in doing so? John Carter (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While not quite the same we have Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have and Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded. w:WP:1.0 is long since depricated on en.wiki since they killed the idea of a CDrom version of the wiki. It would make even less sense here. Especially with our tiny editor base. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe starting some sort of collaboration based on the longer of the lists you linked to might work. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I need help copying tables from English Wikipedia. Great Britain at the 2018 Winter Paralympics is one article where I am having problems. :( --LauraHale (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium at the 2018 Winter Paralympics is a second. --LauraHale (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Canada at the 2018 Winter Paralympics and Germany at the 2018 Winter Paralympics. --LauraHale (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can help if you don't say what exactly you need help with. Chenzw  Talk  15:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Galicia 15 - 15 Challenge is a public writing competition which will improve improve and translate this list of 15 really important articles into as many languages as possible. Everybody can help in any language to collaborate on writing and/or translating articles related to Galicia. To participate you just need to sign up here. Thank you very much.--Breogan2008 (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles made by IPs were not useful and are complete vandalism, so should IPs not be allowed to make articles? The English Wikipedia also does this. There was a discussion before, but I think this needs to be brought up again. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 07:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Most of the articles created by IP's are not useful and are complete vandalism. I think that DJSasso put it best, "I am also not at all supportive of en:actrial because as a small wiki we are very reliant on IPs creating pages. We take the help from anywhere we can get it." IP's are a large part of our content creation force. Every page that is made is reported in the #cvn-simplewikis IRC channel and at Special:Newchanges, where administrators and patrolling editors will notice and mark bad pages for QD. Yes, some pages do get through (like WP:Essay which I found this morning), but we cannot penalize the actions of a significant part of our editing force on the basis we don't want to have to deal with the vandals. _{Vermont | reply here} 10:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup the quote Vermont has sums up my opinions. Whereas en.wiki can afford to not have IPs creating pages, we cannot. We get a significant contribution here from IP editors. There are certainly garbage pages created and most of the time they get caught fairly quickly by people here who patrol the new page creations. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 03:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To inform those who didn't notice, as of yesterday the Simple English Wikipedia logo has been updated. It's no longer blurry and low quality. I was discussing this with a steward in a private chat yesterday and by sheer coincidence (or he said something to someone, I don't know) yesterday happened to be the day they revived the Phabricator ticket! The blurry old logo was replaced with this new logo, with updated kerning, slightly less leading, and much clearer text. _{Vermont | reply here} 09:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out it was a coincidence (lovely how that happens). _{Vermont | reply here} 10:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

To be honest I don't even see the difference. I could have sworn we had switched already, I vaguely recall a battle over switching it at some point in time. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia I use MusikAnimal's response helper, which has the added bonus of pasting a few useful links onto your sidebar. I decided to copy over some of the javascript from it and edit it a bit, so now I have a version of it working for the Simple English Wikipedia (with help from Paladox). It is located here and currently adds VIP, AN, ST, and CAT:QD to one's sidebar. It is easily configurable, and feel free to use it yourself :) _{Vermont | reply here} 22:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, it works well.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Vermont (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a page to report bad usernames (like Wikipedians Drink Bleach)? There is one in en.wikipedia but there is none here. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 05:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VIP is where all reports for vandalism, spam, and username violations. The Simple English Wikipedia is much smaller than the English Wikipedia. One noticeboard for all user reports is more than sufficient. --Eurodyne (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I thinked to make a page only for requesting page protection, and the tool Twinkle can also be used to request page protection, and some templates to this page. Those templates can I create and a category that the template will put the page into.

• In case it's not clear, the suggestion here is to create a new page for requesting page protection (similar to how we have special pages to request rights), and to create templates to make such requests and a category to hold the requests. I think we don't have enough such requests to need special infrastructure for them. As an admin, I'd rather have fewer places that I need to monitor for requested actions. General users might prefer not to have to remember where another page is for a particular kind of request. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking into account that we very rarely have anyone request page protection, and that when they do it's usually declined, creating a new noticeboard for such requests is simply useless. As Auntof6 pointed out, it's better to have fewer places that an administrator would need to monitor for requested actions. As we are a small community, we do not need to branch out into dozens of different noticeboards like the English Wikipedia, for doing so would be needless and would make it less likely that the community would comment on certain requests. Having most proposals and such made here on Simple talk and/or AN supports the notion that a larger portion of the community has input in what goes on, rather than it being to the sole discretion of a reviewing administrator like on other wikis. _{Vermont | reply here} 09:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have created the template {{Semi protection request}}, to use in the administrators' noticeboard (we can still use that page), and three other protection templates.--Psl631 09:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the creation and use of this template on the basis that one should request page protection by discussing it with administrators rather than templating and walking away. _{Vermont | reply here} 09:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And I have deleted the template. There's no consensus for that procedure, so please do not create any templates, categories, etc. until this discussion is done. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, when this discussion is done, OK to create templates.--Psl631 10:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Only if it's decided that we want templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When is this discussion done...? I have waited to create those templates.--Psl631 ^{Talk Contributions} 07:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far people don't seem to think we need the special page, category, or templates, so you might not need to create them. Remember that we try to keep procedures simple here, not just language. It's easier to create a new section on the admins' noticeboard and explain in words what you want, than it is to use a template and have to remember what parameters are needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I would have templates rather than plain text requests for page protection, the templates can have a reason, page, and comments parameter.--Psl631 ^{Talk Contributions} 08:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want that, but others might not. Let's see how the discussion goes. If people don't want to use it, or the admins don't want requests in that form, then those things won't be needed. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Please can an administrator discuss this with the templates on the administrators noticeboard talk page with all other administrators, and ping me when an administrator has replied to the comment on the talk page.--Psl631 ^{Talk Contributions} 17:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate what Auntof6 said: Perhaps instead of asking people to ping you, simply add the page to your watchlist. It's much easier :) Vermont (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when there is a reply to this page, or left message to me on my talk page.--Psl631 08:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making everyone ping you, maybe you could just put this page on your watchlist. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My user account Psl631 is crazy, I appear logged out sometimes while trying to change, and my account need to be fixed so I longer appear logged out and my IP address will appear while editing.--Psl631 ^{Talk Contributions} 07:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Psl631: similar problem is described in w:Help:Logging in I think there might be the solution of the problem you are talking about. I think you should tick keep me logged in before logging in or there might be some problems with browser you are using.-BRP ^ever 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I ticked the "keep me logged in" tickbox and after some seconds will I suddenly appear logged out. What problems is this? What should I do? --Psl631 ^{TALK TO ME!!!} 13:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Psl631:, You might find the solution of this problem in the page I mentioned earlier. You can read it. similar problem is given there.-BRP ^ever 13:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: Hello. I have read that page, but I still appear logged out. Please, Can you describe it here. I will no longer appear logged out when I edit.--Psl631 ^{TALK TO ME!!!} 14:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then there isn't much I can do maybe there is problem in a device you are using for internet.BRP ^ever 15:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Psl631:. The first thing that I would suggest you to do is log yourself out of Wikipedia, completely. Clear all of the cookies from your browser, close your browser and then reopen it. Try logging back into Wikipedia and seeing if you remain logged in. Can you let me know how you get on from doing this please? Thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever and DaneGeld: I logged out completely on this Wikipedia, and cleared all cookies, closed the browser, and reopened it and logged back in and ticked the tickbox "Keep me logged in", but I still appear logged out after some time. What should I do? Psl631 ^{TALK TO ME!!!} 18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are your cookie settings. If you have them to delete when you close the browser or at some point in time or to even reject the cookies, or another Anti-Virus / Anti-Malware program is clearing them. To stay logged in, requires the use of cookies. That is what is sounds like the issue to me. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have got cookies enabled, just a thought (from another Wikipedian I'm talking to in order to get advice), have you got access to another computer or another browser you could download? If so, try logging in from there and see if it makes a difference to your login experience. If you can login from a different browser or PC, it's something to do with the browser or computer you're using now. DaneGeld (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can checkboxes be created in pages using wiki markup? I ask only for how to create one in my user page or the sandbox. --Psl631 ^{Talk Contributions} 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I only thinking if the CAPTCHA used when adding external links, creating account, or failed logins be changed from the fancy CAPTCHA to noCAPTCHA reCAPTCHA. That is very often used to stop spammers and robots and has very high protection level, and that captcha was check of humanity. This is an idea. --Psl631 ^{Talk Contributions} 10:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I only ask where protection of my userpage, User:Psl631, where can it be done? I cannot make protection yet, I only asking if somewone can protect my userpage. Psl631 ^{TALK TO ME!!!} 18:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at the WP:Administrators' noticeboard. hiàn 18:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place is WP:AN but I went on and placed an Indefinite Semi-Protection on your User Page. -- Enfcer (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, For everything that redirects to Bus should the redirects be changed so they go to the descriptions (IE Coach (vehicle) → Bus#Coach / Motor coach, Open top bus → Bus#Open-top bus, Low floor bus → Bus#Low-floor bus)
Or should all bus redirects simply redirect back to Bus (ie the lede)?

I personally feel redirecting to the descriptions is more helpful to our readers however I wanted to get consensus first before changing everything, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's most helpful to point to the specific relevant section. When you do that, it doesn't hurt to include a comment (or maybe an anchor) at the target location; otherwise, if the target page gets revamped, the headings might change and the redirects won't be as helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntof6, So when you say add a comment do you mean like adding a hidden comment to all the sections asking for the redirects to be changed if the headers are changed ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that kind of thing. I'm sure a lot of our redirects don't have that in place, but it can be helpful. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay brilliant I'll start later then, Brilliant thanks so much Auntof6 for your help :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't change them as the headings can change. Getting to the page is enough unless it is a very detailed page where the information is hard to find. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that specific page I would probably merge all the sections into a list. Those don't need to all be sections. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me if an editor is looking for I don't know "Guided bus" ... to me it would be more helpful to link to that section instead of the article overall as in that sense it's not really helping the reader (It tells them what a bus is but that's it - Ofcourse I'm not saying everyone are idiots and don't know how to scroll I'm just trying to make it relatively simple for everyone as children read these too),

FWIW this was how it used to look before I changed it and my issue with it was that no one really had an opportunity to expand on those descriptions, My main issue tho was that the reader would have to constantly scroll from description to tiny image (gallery) in order for them to know what the type is ..... So I figured sections would be more helpful as the image is now next to the descriptions, Ofcourse it has meant the page being excessively long however I feel despite the length of the article the current set up is more helpful to our readers and allows descriptions to be expanded upon,

Just to also note the headers are unlikely to ever be changed - By & large the article (and most certainly the headers) have remained this way since 2007 so are very unlikely to be changed although if they are then I'd be more than happy to change/update them but as I said it'll be very unlikely, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davey2010, I agree with the point you are making. what you are doing is Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages#Think about your readers. To readers it would be easy to go to selected part then reading the whole article from top to the part. It would be quick and time saving and also reduces unnecessary reading effort. So it would be better if I could go to that part directly. Atleast that's what I would like as a reader.-BRP ^ever 13:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous version is exactly what I am talking about. It should be changed back to that. Sections for each of those items is overkill and is more than likely undue weight. I also don't know that we need a picture for every variant of a bus. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to revert something, "I also don't know that we need a picture for every variant of a bus" - That has already been explained in great detail above, As I have already said not every reader is going to know what these vehicles are and as such it's more beneficial to the reader to have the images next to that section .... but again all of this has already been addressed, If no one else objects I'll get round to the redirects tomorrow, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 01:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an I don't like it. Its en:WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Having sections like this implies more importance than there is. Having pictures of every variant doesn't necessarily help. Having too many can actually hinder a reader. It is one of the reasons it is suggested not to have galleries on pages. Unless anyone else objects I will be reverting back to the list. To be honest, I am a little shocked you can't see how bad that page is in its current state compared to how it was. Like it is shockingly bad. Multiple inches of white space after each section which makes the page really hard to read. Considerably more so than having to look in a short list for the bus you want. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section was just intended to be a section of examples, for most of them there will never be more to write. Some of them are even duplicates. The ones that are notable on their own, break out to their own article if you want more detail (unmerge gyrobus for example it should have stayed its own article), but as it is, is just not helpful, and took a much better written page and made it harder for a reader to use. Previously you could see it all on one screen for the list and for the busses (on a smaller screen than I have you might have to scroll slightly to see it all), but now you have to scroll and scroll and scroll, I think I counted eight or nine scrolls to get to the bottom of the list. Very poor readability. I don't mean to sound harsh as I know it was done in good faith but the page is a lot worse off in its current condition. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

en:WP:SOFIXIT then ...... As I have said the length is an issue however I'm all ears and if you have better suggestions then I'll be happy to hear and discuss them, As I've said not everyone will know what those vehicles are without looking at the images so as such my current layout is far more helpful to our readers than what was previously there, I'm not sat here saying "This page is absolutely perfect" because it's not however it's a major improvement to what was there previously,

I appreciate not everyone wants to scroll but at the same time having little descriptions with no images does not help the reader either, Again I 110% agree the length is a major issue so again if you have a better suggestion as to how to condense the length I'd be more than happy to hear them,

As for the Gyrobus article - Realistically that wasn't notable for an article and as such I felt it'd be better to merge, The descriptions can easily be expanded upon and no doubt will, You have to remember the previous layout had remained like that since what 2007 .... and so in that sense was uneditable if that makes sense, Least this way editors can expand and if need be source. –Davey2010^Talk 18:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add but the sections can easily be filled up and no doubt will be over time, I feel reverting will only disservices our readers and that is my core goal on here .... to help our readers and give them knowledge, I feel having the images directly next to the next would help our readers understand more,–Davey2010^Talk 19:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Djsasso - What about a table ? Something like the below?

Type	Description	Image
low floor bus	low floor is a .....
guided bus	guided bus is a.....
open top	open top is a....

Would that be better ? –Davey2010^Talk 19:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you make the images smaller? Maybe if the detail were split off to a list article? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntof6, I think smaller images would still cause issues, The second plan sounds a brilliant idea, That would most certainly address all of the issues here (which then in turn means redirects can go to that list which wouldn't take forever to scroll through), If Djsasso agrees then I'll revert the article for now and then will create all, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, how about we make another article with "types of buses" in which other pages can be redirected to the section and the article "bus" can return back to it's short form. Doing so can make it easier for all. Types of buses can be the article like a list and it holds plenty of information for the article. And main page about types of bus can be shown in Bus. So why don't we do that.-BRP ^ever 01:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant idea, I'll sort something out over the weekend, Thanks everyone for your comments!, –Davey2010^Talk 10:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget just to note I've also reverted the Gyrobus merge so that has its own article again, Once again thanks all for your help and comments. –Davey2010^Talk 10:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge is an edition competition seeking to create and improve articles on the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. Anyone in any language can subscribe and collaborate on building or translating articles relating to the Twelve Apostles. Medals and real icons will be rewarded to the winners. To participate, one just needs to subscribe here and start collaborating. Dia Duit! Leefeni de Karik (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psl631 created this template, which is intended to flag pages (both articles and other types of pages) that don't have images. Since using such a template would add to our maintenance load, I thought we should discuss whether we want this functionality.

I think it might be useful, but I see potential to go overboard with it. We have many articles that lack images, but I'm not sure that's enough of a problem to have a template along with the associated infrastructure. (The associated infrastructure could include maintenance categories, adding to backlog tracking, adding it to the list of maintenance templates that get dated by a bot, and maybe more, depending on how we want to manage it.) I wouldn't want to see articles get tagged with this template just because they have no image, without considering that some articles may not need an image.

For what it's worth, I couldn't find anything like this on enwiki. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That template can be used to tag pages that the page need more images or have no images.-- Psl631 ^{TALK Contribs} 05:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never consider adding tag to the articles a good thing until it is very necessary and there is always a chance that many tag meets the article like this. One of the funny things I observed going around the wikis is that I find some tags longer than the article itself. And with the tag like this one there is the chance of overdoing things (possibility). Thousands of aticle lack images here (mostly logos which hold copyright issues) but the article can be good on itself so tagging those good article with these kind of tags can decrease the quality of article (by which I mean overall appearance). So I don't think it is good to have such tags here.(my opinion only) If someone still believe we can use it with proper maintainance and by setting a specific parameters for the use of this template I will not go against it. But I think maintaining those things will be hard. And for now I am in the side of not keeping this template. Thanks-BRP ^ever 05:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the template can be used on pages that need more images is basically saying it can be used on pages that need improvement. However, most of our articles, even the good and very good ones, can use improvement of some kind, and it would be hard to define and stick to criteria for when to use. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Auntof6 for understanding the point I was trying to make. I listed some points so that it would be easier for everyone to understand it

• Some major articles as well a large number of articles here lack images so tagging for those all article will make the articles seem less qualitative.(not to mention some may not need one)
• Without a criteria of use, the template may create unnecessary conflict among editors.(Creator and tagger).
• Some images might not be available for general use like logos and company stamps which are to be used in the specific pages so tagging those pages will only mean to tag those pages for years.
• In some wiki like enwiki where I find evey 1 of 5 or may be 3 or may be 7 (let's not go in numbers) pages tagged, such tag can cause problems. I don't want such things to happen here on this wiki.
• (last and most important one) Here uploaders and admins are only allowed to upload images(not talking about Commons) so this tag and what's written in it can be a waste.(don't take it negatively) I mean if other users can't upload the image than what's the point in keeping a tag over the page and asking them to upload?

So I don't find this template fitting here. Thanks and if some of my words feels offensive to you(anyone) or effects you in some kind, then sorry.-BRP ^ever 07:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRPever makes a good point: we have no widespread local uploading. I.e. users need to go to commons to upload, and cannot upload images locally unless given the temporary "uploader" flag, or are an administrator (this will not change easily, copyright/legal issues). Tags placed could very easily sit there forever without being addressed. And, considering Psl631's actions on Colleen Ferrary (what could be construed as tag-bombing), the template will probably make its way onto a lot of pages across the wiki. For many of which, the template will do nothing but make our readers scroll down a bit more to get to the content. Rather than slapping a template on it, if you want to add an image to an article, add an image to that article. There's bound to be something on commons. Furthermore, many articles simply do not need images. Yes, images are usually welcome and supplement the text with nice visuals, but sometimes it's just unnecessary. Vermont (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we don't need it at all. Not a fan of tagging in general. But since we don't allow image uploading here, they would almost certainly never get actioned as the person would have to go to commons to upload a picture. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant to the old Template:Image requested which is little used here for reasons already discussed. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the roblox article the logo is not showing up on the info box even through the file exists and works on the English and other Wikipedias Killfish23 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Paladox on IRC and he was able to fix the infobox :-) Vermont (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Killfish23 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a prize for cutest hoax? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best one I have seen. Wonderful, I feel refreshed with this. Thanks jim-BRP ^ever 12:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I fear our imaginative dinoauthor is becoming overly bold unless I am mistaken about Zunityrannus. If he doesn't confess, it looks like a job sifting his entire output, or else junking a lot of mostly sound articles lest other clinkers survive. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I am planning to create some pages related to Nepal. But I don't think I will be able to finish them all, since there are many. But I will try to start them all. So, it would be helpful if Nepal-stub was created. As to create new templates such as these a discussion is needed. So I am asking for your views regarding the matter.-BRP ^ever 05:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: New stub types have to be requested and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. In the meantime, you could use {{Asia-stub}}. What do you mean by not being able to finish them all? Articles need to say what the subject is and indicate notability, but other details can always be added later. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will move the discussion there. And yes the articles I am going to create will have those basic factors. As you understood I meant there are lot of them that needs to be created and I will not be able to add very long or complete details about them. so, most of them will be created stub.-BRP ^ever 05:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But before that I think I will need to create many articles to prove it is worthy to be created, Thanks-BRP ^ever 05:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! The accompte ParissaOfficial is globally locked and I can't created articles . I need help if somebody an user could created the article Dark Leg Dark Punk please. I can put informations about it on Wikidata to help the person who will creat the article. Thanks a lot.

ParisaMovaghar (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quick answer is no. You were globally locked for a valid reason, and that was due to cross-wiki spam. We will not create whatever you request. None of your articles are notable enough for inclusion in Wikimedia projects, and it's darn time you realized. Stop spamming across Wikimedia projects. We will not tolerate spam of this type.

Forget about Wikimedia projects. Stop recreating these articles. You'll save everyone a lot of hassle. hiàn 23:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have one or more editors making complex changes to mythology articles, and creating new, complex, uncategorized ones. I've reverted the complex changes to existing articles. I've also left messages when I see this, but they don't seem to be doing any good. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: When monitoring the CVN feed on IRC I commonly see new mythology articles, and rewrites of old ones. For the new articles, if they are complex should we QD them or RfD them? And for the rewritten articles, should we revert the changes if it's not Simple English? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the rewrites: I revert the complex changes when I see them. If you're seeing them in the feed, you might be seeing more than I do, because I mostly see only the ones on pages on my watchlist. On the new articles: Being complex isn't one of the QD options unless it's a close copy from another Wikipedia. If it's not a close copy, I think the only options are to either tag as complex or simplify because I don't think there'd be support for deleting them. I've left multiple messages for the editors doing this, but the messages don't seem to have had any effect. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'll keep an eye out for them when patrolling. Vermont (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're back. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of their changes earlier but their edits are very confusing. Makes me think many times before reverting (when I reverted those some days ago). Can I revert those if I find them being complex than the earlier one? Though the quantity seems to be greater the quality of the pages decreases by their edits.-BRP ^ever 11:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever: What do you find confusing? If a change makes a page more complex, it could be either reverted or simplified. I simplified some of the new articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case of New articles they can be simplified. I will mostly try to keep those articles by simplifying them. But in some of the changes earlier they left the summary that "earlier intro was fine" or something like that and did an addition that made it complex [7]. I think the earlier version was easy to understand. So if I find such edits I will revert those.BRP ^ever 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; that's what I've been doing. I think this is a case of one or more people not understanding what this Wikipedia is about. Their writing would be perfectly fine on English Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added an RFD using twinkle, and for some reason it's adding the (2nd nomination) part to the actual title of the RFD, so it thinks the article is actually called https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khodadad_Movaghar_(2nd_nomination), which it's not. I can't figure out how to fix this manually as it's never happened to me before. Help! DaneGeld (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something is wrong with Twinkle's code; as far as I know, it's always done this with second+ nominations. hiàn 03:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I only ask which templates which can be substituted or not, which templates can be substituted, I planned to substitute templates that not should be substituted in the sandbox. Please can an user add a list here below which templates which can be substituted or not, so I know which templates that need substitution. :) -- Psl631 ^{TALK Contribs} 18:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question shouldn't be which templates can be substituted: any template can be, technically. In practice, there are some that should always be substituted, and the rest should not be. I don't think anyone can give you a list, but you can find some of the ones that should be substituted in Category:Wikipedia substituted templates.

The basic reasoning about which ones should be substituted has to do with whether the output of previous uses should change if the template gets changed. That's why you see the warning templates in the category: if the warning templates change, we still want to see the old text in previous warnings so that we know exactly what the older warnings said.

It might help us answer you if you explain what you're doing. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article Oriental Pearl Tower with content from Famous places in Shanghai, which was the subject of an RfD. Do I remove the applicable information from that article? DJSasso did vote to demerge the content. hiàn 19:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I just added the four "missing" RfDs (which were neither closed, nor listed as "in progress") to our RfD page. Currently, I dpn't know the reason why they didn't show. Just posting this here, so that if it happens again, we can look into it.--Eptalon (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now and then, including one recent one that I added manually. Did you notice whether these were created by a tool such as Twinkle? I've always thought they come from manual creations where the creator doesn't complete the process. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any analyses, I simply re-added them to the RfD page.--Eptalon (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two were clearly manually done; the other two were added by Psl631's IP supposedly using Twinkle. I'm quite certain those were manually done as well since IPs cannot use Twinkle. hiàn 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the RfD tag on Celestine (mineral) was removed by User:Macdonald-ross when he improved the article. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let it run for another day or so, then close as keep? --Eptalon (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the proposer had said "The page is very short, and I are unsure for a QD", so when I rewrote it there was no case at all for an RfD. It's not as though we missed anything. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ip through which Psl631 made RFD has problem with it's twinkle as a result incomplete RFD procedure was done and the request was not added to RFD page. And the others I think they were done manually and the process was incomplete or some errors came. So, they were not listed in RFD page. I think if a similar problem comes in the future 2 or 3 more days should be added after relisting them. The more greater problem would be if the contributor or page Creator are not informed. I didn't went to this part but doing RFD without the information to the user can be a bit of a problem.-BRP ^ever 09:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, In two of those cases users were not informed. Should we notify them now?-BRP ^ever 09:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe IPs can use Twinkle, so I'd think the edit summary was manually added for those two. The normal Twinkle always places the request on the main RfD page. hiàn 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Hiàn, but Psl631 has a problem of getting logged out between an edit we discussed it Wikipedia:Simple talk #My account is crazy. So that might be the reason for having twinkle in edit summary. I think that Psl631 was the one making request and the problem he has resulted to incomplete procedure of RFD.-BRP ^ever 03:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It isn't nice to have to propose something like this, but on the basis of their general failure to understand and comply with the level of writing needed here, I am proposing a community sanction against the user Chrisangelo23.

It is clear to me that they wish to contribute, but the user seems to have a problem with the way we write here. They don't like the manner in which our articles are written, having referred to them as "demeaning" to the reader's intellect. A large proportion of their edits have been reverted by administrators for being far too complicated.

Despite requests increasing in strength, the user seems intent on wording things how they want and not in a way that we require. They have been directed to read our information on how to write in Simple English, but it appears that they do not wish to comply with it.

I have asked for a sanction, rather than a ban, because I believe that this user could work here for example, if it was possible for them to have their edits checked before they went live. What I hope for is input from the community with a view to the least restricting option for this editor.

I will notify Chrisangelo23 in line with our rules, that this discussion is open. Thank you. DaneGeld (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's such a thing as a "community sanction". The only community action I know of that can be taken against a user is a community ban. The policy on that says that that "may mean that a user cannot change certain pages, areas, or do certain things for a long time (usually one year)".

Actually, though, I don't think anything short of a block would work here. Not only has this user not seemed to tailor their writing to Simple's requirements, they have also used edit summaries declaring that the edits were simple when they actually weren't. This is why I left a warning that they might be blocked -- the first serious warning they received. I was prepared to take action if unacceptable edits continued after that, so I don't think this proposal is necessary. I also don't think this user's changes rise to a level that requires community action: that is usually reserved for things that are more offensive, disruptive, and/or destructive, and where previous blocks have been made but have not helped. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, direct link. Editor has been here for 10 days so I agree that a permanent block may be excessive, but I do think a small block may be needed. I hope the editor comments here and recognizes the concerns. - Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From his comments on Auntof6's talk page and on DaneGeld's talk page, he doesn't seem to understand the purpose of the Simple English Wikipedia. He also maintains this attitude in his edits, and edit summaries. Considering that he has not responded to this proposal, I recommend we wait and see what his response is. If he refuses to abide by our community policies and guidelines, I'd support a temporary block. Vermont (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Thank you for that. Under the circumstances, I was intending more for the community to give their input towards a sanction. However, as you point out that a community sanction doesn't actually exist, I'll withdraw this proposal. I took the decision to ask for something less restrictive because I thought there could have been a chance to retain the editor rather than stopping their work. It looks like a block is unfortunately going to be the only reasonable option. DaneGeld (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference Auntof6, the community can impose topic bans etc which can take up all kinds of forms. They have been implemented in the past as a first step instead of full out ban. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. It's explained in the part of the policy that I quoted above. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what motivates the user but they don't seem to understand how we work here. And DaneGeld, you did a good thing by asking what community thinks about the changes they are doing. I reverted some of their edits myself and concluded by the message in their talk page that they are not trying to go by the rules here. So, what I would like to suggest is, ask the user to see what community thinks about his changes and if he is willing to go by our rules then we can help him understand how we work here. But if they are stuck on their changes and do not respond here or change their way of edit then I am sorry to say that block is the only way since community seems to tired of reverting and fixing their changes, thanks.-BRP ^ever

• I need to make you aware that I reverted another edit from this user which, all barring about 6 words, was the same as Auntof6 removed a week ago. It was pretty much just as complex as last time. Our words seem to be going right over his head. I am now leaning towards a ban. I pointed him at this discussion, so he would have seen it. No response here or on his talk page. DaneGeld (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Another warning has now been given to Chrisangelo23, by @J991:. Since the user by the looks of things, isn't going to input here, can I now ask one of the administrators to look at blocking please? I am not sure how much longer we need to wait or what else needs to be done. Thanks, DaneGeld (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the user a basic warning at first and have had to revert several of their complex changes. We have been here before with other users. Time for an initial short block, please, so they can no longer waste others' time and clutter up the wiki with copyright violations and complexity. A ban is in order if the user does not change after a short block. They have made it very clear in their messages and edit summaries that they do not accept the aims or policies of this wiki. Gotanda (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:Chrisangelo23 for 48 hours. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See List of large temple tanks. What's going on? I can see the temples, fronted by lakes (which might be artificial, for all I know). It throws up various questions, like translations into English, and list which are put up with few or no substantive pages (ie all red-link lists). Of course I'm not exactly fluent in Tamil, but I think in English you would have to use pools or lakes. And I think our titles must be comprehensible in English. Any way, I thought it worth you all having a look. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temple tanks are wells or reservoirs built as part of the temple complex near Indian temples. (from EnWP). In a bigger-is-better-manner we might as well classify (English/French/...) castles by the size of their ornamental garden. Bigger garden -> more powerful ruler. Or if we keep a religious context, cathedrals by the amount of time it took to build them (most took several hundred years).No, don't ask, most regulars know what I think about gouping items into Lists...--Eptalon (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please all read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) full version in En wiki [8]. Key points are:

• Verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Sources must be published, but need not be quoted (but it makes the article better).
• No company or organization is inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.
• No inherited notability. An org is not notable because it has a notable individual in it, and vice versa.
• How to apply the criteria. All these criteria must be met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

The discussion and cross-table example which follows on the En wiki page is very important. This is relevant to our increasing number of new pages about companies, and to some pages about individuals. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see this, some of such details for the events, person (singers especially), groups should also be made clear. I see them thinking this wiki as a site to show their company details or a self promotion site. Many users here may not know the policy full well. I find many articles still here which lies below our notability guidelines. If these guidelines are made clear we can make the long RFD process short to QD by A4. Thanks-BRP ^ever 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start porting the notability requirements over and then revising them to fit this wiki. I know that we refer to English but we don't follow their image use polcy, we should be much stricter in my opinion. Ricky81682 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...which pretty much means any machine translations. We are getting more of these. I just want to remind reviewers that there are two ways to go. If the topic is notable (and that may be a problem), either

1. If you can see what it was trying to say, then revise into proper simple English, or
2. Put it up for QD as being A3: "Copied and pasted from another WP without simplifying complex text".
3. If you cannot decide whether it is notable, RfD is available.

Whatever, we can't accept such pages unchanged because it would defeat the purpose of the wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I have also done a few time now, is to replace the text of an obviously notable article here with the blurb (first few sections) from the article from EnWP. Simplifying this blurb by replacing a few words, and shortening sentences is often straigntforward. On the talk page the template {{enwp based}} can be used to attribute the copying. And yes, I agree, the last few machine translations I have seen were horrible. --Eptalon (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QD/A3 is only if it actually was copied/translated from another Wikipedia: not all bad translations are. Part of the reason we get these is that people use the content translator, which cannot produce simple English. I'd like to see it disabled here. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. The ones I saw were based on Spanish wiki. I'd have trouble if they were from Japanese wiki, maybe... Yes, there's a loophole when people use a translator for off-wikipedia web sources. We can't use A3 then. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Do we need another rule for the Deletion Policy? - Something ike "The article looks like it has been translated using a tool, but this translation was not reviewed and adapted to Simple English"? - Machine translation can be helpful, but like all translation, it needs reviewing and adapting. --Eptalon (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, we can probably use A5 ("not written in English"). The last few translations I have seen were very dificult to understand. If you do a word for word translation, you'll end up with something that is grammatically incocrect in English - "Ich habe den Hund gefüttert (I've fed the dog)" -> "I have the dog fed" --Eptalon (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to recognize that? "I have the dog fed" isn't incorrect, it just doesn't mean what was intended. ("What do you do when you can't feed the dog yourself? I have the dog fed", meaning that you get someone else to feed the dog.) --Auntof6 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was just an example; probably works pretty well for German (poosibly other Germanic languages), or French; works less for other languages. German is pretty open-minded about word order, in English, word order is pretty strict...--Eptalon (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this duplicate dicussion here when I already replied at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Proposal:_New_deletion_reason_for_bad_translations.. I will reiterate what I said there. I can't object to this more strongly. This would be possibly the worst idea going. As Chenzw mentioned there, this would open the floodgates to arbitrary deletions. QD cannot be used for the quality of prose, period. If you see a machine translation by all means put it up for Rfd if you really feel you must. Or you could you know, cut it down to stub which would be more productive. A3 would definitely not apply to this. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, A3 "Has been copied and pasted from another Wikipedia without simplifying complex text" surely can be applied when a translation from a foreign language has been done, irrespective of whether the translation is badly done by a human or a machine. In both cases the user has presented us with text which we may judge to be too difficult/complex for our readers. It just so happens that we can read into some of these pages that a machine translation has been used. The end result is just as bad for our readers. And we do in fact make judgements about prose because that is what complexity is all about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the end it all boils down to "Given a 'bad translation/barely intelligible text' how much effort do you want to put into it, to 'save the article'? - Depending on the subject, and level of comprehesibility of the text, many would rather delete/propose for deletion. --Eptalon (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A3 was only intended to prevent complex articles from en.wiki in whole being copied over. A translation whether by person or machine, would not be a copying, as there would have been by definition a translation which means its not identical to the original. The issue is anytime a judgement call needs to be made you should not be quick deleting, you should be taking it to Afd. Whether something is a machine translation or a person with a poor grasp of the language is a value judgement, and value judgements should not be happening at the quick deletion state, they need to be done at Afd. The quick deletion criteria are very exacting and mean exactly what they say, they are not intended to be bent to fit whatever situation you want to use them in. If it isn't exactly what they QD criteria says, then you must take to Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]