Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk

WP:ST

This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here.

You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages.

You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.

Are you in the right place?

See WP:AN to speak to an administrator.
See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
See WP:OS for oversight.
See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant).
See WP:VIP to report vandalism.

Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge

change

Red flags of science (popping up again)

Ambipolar electric field - please consider de-publishing or USERFY.

(This article makes me about as uncomfortable as the one that i wrote about in July: That thread was 'Please remove a false statement (about Chemistry) from an article'.)--Justification: thousands of hours studying science, gives me a feeling that something (or much) in the Ambipolar electric field article is not right.--FWIW - I doubt that our article will be regarded as having redeeming qualities, if one asks En-wiki if that article could be of interest to them (and they do not have that title). 2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of the sources that talks about it came about recently and the fact that this was just recent discovery (the NASA article as of writing is just one day ago), I highly doubt that this article will be suitable for English Wikipedia as per the lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. Maybe giving it more time to have more coverage? But as of now, it's best to just de-publish the article given that it has no article yet in en-wiki. AsianStuff03 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:AsianStuff03 brings up some excellent points.--For now, i do not think it would be enough to tag the article (with any number of tags).--Perhaps we could move the mention, to the relevant article about the blah-blah-sphere of the atmosphere (the one which is at one hundred and umpteen km/miles above the Earth's surface).--With the current article, i think that we are running the risk of it becoming a milestone in a negative way. Perhaps not unlike, The Emperor's New Clothes.--Anyone has my support in nominating the article for Delete (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]

Hi, have you thought about starting a WP:RfD? ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that another Wikipedia (English or any other Wik) does not have an article on this topic is irrelevant. We are an separate Wik and not some sort of daughter of the English Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, anyone is welcome to suggest the contents of our article, to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics .--Not even their "ten-foot pole cabinet", will be opened in connection with that. At least not this month.--Me? I will be busy fixing other articles, and sniffing out other dubious (or even not-yet-ready-to-be-wikiPublished) stuff. Good luck! 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This change in electric potential energy [sic] is just the right amount to explain the supersonic solar wind."--This sentence has at least two areas that ('might') need work (and at some point one would also have to make wiki-links).--Suggestion: Anyone can write an article about the rocket taking off and splashing down (and then anyone can fill in (or dabble) about the scientific observations done while the rocket was underway). That article would quite possibly be a 'keeper'.--As for our (bad-science article or) 'science' article, one would need a nomination for Delete, before I 'can' 'bus in' more science experts to also look at why we should not keep the article (and likely not keep the title, either).--Good luck (while i am working on other articles, and looking out for nomination for Delete). 2001:2020:335:9888:29BA:2379:7311:EB0B (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]

Clarification: Suggestion: Anyone can write a new article about the rocket taking off and ... .--Another thing: canvassing is not permitted, of course. 2001:2020:335:9888:C5F3:A2A:1C92:A271 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC) //2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]
Hello IP, with very few exception, anyone can write an article on anything they like, in Wikipedia. As to the article:
- there is a site of NASA, explaining it; it also has a nicve (fairly recent) explanation video, see here
- I find scientific artilces about the effect, the oldest one from 1955, see here
The article itself is in simple language, so what reason is there to delete or userify it?

So if you think it should be deleted, make a request; but in my vew, this is a legitimate, simple article Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try to check, once every week, if the article has been nominated for Delete.--Taking it from that point (a prospective nomination), will be fine.--Chances are, the article will then crash and burn.--Then the (de-published) article will become a benchmark of sorts, and will serve as a warning of sorts, about one way we might not be taking care of things, in the future.--Train wrecks reach a point, when it is too late to stop (one might say).--It would be possible to take the article (verbatim), and put the title as a section, in some existing article; As a last section in the Arctic area article, will not make the situation go from bad to worse, one might claim.--However, the money shot (so to speak) will be the results from the (prospective) Delete discussion. 2001:2020:351:A342:D51B:FEDC:4A2A:7B37 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Things that were not true, were removed from the article, over half a week ago (and the talk-page will come to reflect what other misunderstandings might be impacting the article).--The article ain't gonna be burnin'. 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765 /2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I and a few others, have done some first-aid on the En-wiki article. If y'all keep your article superclose to what the En-wiki article says, then you will likely not have any 'lies regarding science' in your article.--Note: A (or any) polarization electric field comes in different 'flavors'; All ambipolar electric fields are a kind of polarization electric field.--Note also that "ambipolar" here, has nothing to do with the North Pole and the South Pole of the Earth.--Best title? Maybe Ambipolar electric field of the ionosphere.--To imply that the the electric field that has been indicated 'by the 2022 rocket-flight', is the only one that has to do with the Earth - would be a dubious claim, uncareful claim, and 'somewhat preposterous claim'.--Good luck while i fix other articles. 2001:2020:317:ACB3:D5D9:4A18:8F23:9FCE (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]

Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust

I think Nazi ghettos is quite short and could be merged with Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust, which an editor has been working on recently. However, should there be a standalone list or should that be included within the main article for the topic? 2607:F140:6000:806A:C138:1965:393B:D295 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany, is English-wiki's article. The name is spot-on.--(En-wiki has one article.)--We have two articles (but they should be one).--It does not matter which name you choose (for now), because i expect to have a surprise (after a merge).--Now, if there were 'non-Nazi ghettos in Europe' during say, 1940-1945, then there is one title that maybe should not be the 'merge title'.--Good luck (and see ya after 'the' merge), cuz i'll be fixing other articles. 2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might also have an issue on naming here. Stalin established 'workj camps' (called 'Gulag), the first camp was built and opened 1918/1919. Most of them were established in the 1930s. Stalin died in 1953. They were used for regular and political prisoners (and perhaps targetet less of an 'ethnic group' than those in Germany. At the start of the war, about 1.5 million people were in these camps. S, likely we have a naming issue, do we want all 'labor camps', or only those of Nazi Germany? - I am not a hisotrian, and don't know if similar camps existed in other parts of the world. Eptalon (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulag was a network of (many) Penal colony, in the Soviet Union. Check if the Vorkuta "camp", was a work camp, or something worse.--Could one say that few people would bother to check if the worst of the Auschwitz camps, were work camps? 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The origins of the town [,now city,] of Vorkuta are associated with Vorkutlag, one of the most notorious forced-labour camps of the Gulag", according to En-wiki. 2001:2020:30D:A266:B459:A45E:E830:8A74 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 /2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361[reply]

I think we should focus this on a single page and it should be about the Nazi use of ghettos. fr33k man 16:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, user:fr33kman.--What should the name of that one article be?

Nazi Germany's ghettos, or

Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany.

("Nazi ghettos" is not crystal-clear about time or place, one might say.)

Of the three last-mentioned names, i "vote" for any of the two first ones. 2001:2020:4345:BC7E:113B:FC1F:C004:CEDC (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected to Nazi ghettos.--Justification, en-wiki has an article called "List of Nazi concentration camps" - that is a Simple title. 2001:2020:4345:BC7E:9997:D541:B0EA:90AA (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect has been undone, by a bot (some hours after the fact).--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:4359:E3C8:8463:67EE:292B:F09 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:4359:E3C8:8463:67EE:292B:F09 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold. My edit of today, has edit-remark "See discussion at Simple Talk | Revert Good-faith edit | Undid revision ...".--Bold reading might be of more help today, than bold editing. 2001:2020:341:E598:E536:4693:5330:C3A9 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on proposed change to a QD option

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed change to option T2. Please read and give your views. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been open for 9 days or so, with all comments supporting the proposal. I'd feel more comfortable not declaring my own proposal to be accepted, so could another admin do the honors if they see fit? Thanks. --

Done, the consensus is reflected in WP:TQD. user:Ferien has been contacted to reflect the consensus in the Twinkle interface. MathXplore (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with use of Template:Football squad

This template appears to be used as a base for creating navigational boxes for the current squads of football teams. The header in the resulting templates says "current squad". The issue is that the template was also used to create the following navboxes for teams' squads in individual seasons:

These are not intended to be for the current squads, but for the squads of specific seasons, so they shouldn't say "current squad".

I think we need to do one of the following:

Create a new template to handle these so that they don't say "current year". (I don't suggest changing the existing template because we would lose that change if we update the template from enwiki.)
Decide that we don't need these and eliminate them. For what it's worth, enwiki doesn't seem to have any "<team> squad <season>" templates. The five listed above are the only "<team> squad <season>" templates I could find here.

Pinging @Werner100359:, the creator of the five templates listed.

Thoughts? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm leaning towards option 2. TBH, I wouldn't be 100% opposed to the idea of something like this if it was just for continental/club-level international trophy (eg. FIFA Club World Cup) winning teams (See Template:Borussia Dortmund Squad 1997 Champions League, which I honestly forgot I made until typing this up), but seeing as these ones are for Red Bull Salzburg (one of the better Austrian teams of recent) and FC Liefering (Salzburg's reserve team), deletion would probably make the most sense. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure

Per this Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed the 2023 discussion, but I continue to stand by what I said in 2020, and I agree that the argument about backlog reduction is not a very strong one (or even a significant one, for that matter). To quote Fehufanga in the 2023 discussion: What we need is more people actively participating in RfDs by leaving comments that are not just votes... or ambiguous !votes. --Chenzw Talk 07:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chenzw So can I continue? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you can (or even should have started). My personal take was that I wouldn't mind NACs for unambiguous results, but I don't see any consensus supporting an NAC process in the 2023 discussion. Chenzw Talk 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Davey2010 Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 07:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore my advice, post here and then want me to comment again ?, The mind truly boggles. Don't ping me again. –Davey2010^Talk 10:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked to post on simple talk? for advice? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get "I should go to Simple talk" from this comment > (If Auntof6 has a problem they can go to Simple Talk and either ask for clarification or start a proposal on the matter,), Which part of that quoted comment tells you you should go to the talkpage?. –Davey2010^Talk 10:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was my misunderstanding sorry Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well damage has been done now, 2 admins have now told you you cannot close RFDs so you can't close them now. Have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 10:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t planning to, not that it matters. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I endose there not being an non-admin closure on simplewiki. The current cadre can handle it especially now that we've asked people to run for admin. fr33k man 14:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason as to why people cannot close RFDs here, Yes I supported disallowing it in the 2023 discussion linked above however since then it's become apparent some admins don't close RFDs once they've speedied an article, Cactus was closing RFDs where the admins didn't close the RFDs once they speedied the article and so I don't see a problem with their closures here and in fact we should welcome this sort of helpful editing instead of disallowing it and thus allowing random people to comment on deleted articles. Also by allowing people to do this sort of work it gives them some knowledge and insight in to admin areas and allows people to help out when there's no admins on, plus it's a box ticked for RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with this. While admins are encouraged to close the RFD of pages they QDd, I see no reason why users shouldn't be able to use common sense and close for those they didn't. This isn't even a big deal, and any issue that may occur can be resolved easily. At most, we might just have to re-open the discussion. I think it's best if we admins assist users with problems if it arises instead of barring people for simple tasks. BRP^ever 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

missing stub themes

Category:Stub categories

There are a lot of quite specific stub topics, but we're missing some significant broad themes.

We need stub categories for language and culture, one of each, and possibly something general about news or journalism, those names or something similar. The closest are literature, geography, politics, and religion, a lot of language or culture topics don't really fit in those specific themes.

LagoonGoose (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: The general {{stub}} template can be used for things that don't fit any of the more-specific stub types.

This wiki keeps the number of stub types to a minimum. New types need to be approved at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. Typical requirements for getting a new type approved are 1) the existence of at least 1,000 articles that fit the new type and 2) one or more users who are going to do a lot of work to expand those articles. Just changing the stub type on an article (called "stub sorting") isn't considered helpful. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many are currently unsorted? LagoonGoose (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many are just "stub" with nothing more specific? LagoonGoose (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: I probably can't give you an exact number, but here are some stats:

Template:Stub has 6405 transclusions
There are 6,411 pages in Category:Stubs.

I don't know what accounts for the difference in the two numbers. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 the automatic text on categories says something like "may not reflect recent changes", so it probably just takes a while to catch up. LagoonGoose (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the difference in numbers is probably because some pages use {{Multistub}} with a blank parameter, which can add them to Category:Stubs and another stub category. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find any like that, we should probably change them so they only add the article to a more-specific category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what's there, some combination of "media" and "social sciences" would cover a lot of it. There's quite a few languages, but provably not 1000, they could go in either "social sciences" or "media and communication". There's also news outlets, books, book characters, etc. which could go in a "media" category. "Africa" might work, but possibly doesn't have 1000. LagoonGoose (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: Well, maybe they could, but we don't create new stub types just because there are a lot of articles that would fit them. As I said, stubs are managed differently here. This is another way things are kept simple here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know how other wikis manage stubs, I've only looked at it here. I was looking for ways to be helpful, sorting the unsorted subs looked like a thing that needed doing, but if my suggestions aren't helpful I'll ignore the stub categories and leave it how it is. LagoonGoose (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: Understood, and your wanting to be helpful is much appreciated! If you want, I can give some thought to something that needs doing that you might want to do. Would you want something easy, or would you be interested in doing something more complicated? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 lets start with simple? LagoonGoose (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: Would you like to work on dead-end pages? A dead-end page is a page that has no links to other pages. You would figure out what words/terms should be linked and add those links. You can find dead-end pages in two places:

Special:DeadendPages (currently shows 319 pages)
Category:Dead-end pages (currently has 75 pages) - Note: if you work on these, be sure to remove the {{dead end}} template when you add links.

I'll give you one piece of guidance on these. When adding links, link to complete ideas/topics, which doesn't always mean individual words. I worked on a few of these yesterday, and here are some examples of what I mean:

In The Book of Pooh, I linked the whole term "children's television series", instead of linking the three words separately or linking "television series" separately
In Ae (Cyrillic), I linked the term "Cyrillic script" instead of linking the two words separately

Of course, sometimes a single word is the right thing to link.

If that doesn't interest you, let me know and I'll keep looking. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 am I linking in our out? What is the difference between the two sets? LagoonGoose (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: I'm not sure what you mean. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about {{Africa-stub}} and {{Middle-East-stub}}? We have {{Asia-stub}} and {{Europe-stub}} but no Africa, and there are enough stubs about the modern Middle East that they warrant a set more specific than Asia or geography. LagoonGoose (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LagoonGoose: This wiki manages the stubs differently from, for example, English Wikipedia. It doesn't create stub types just to have a complete set. If you'd like to have a new type, subject to what I mentioned above, you can request it at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. You might want to read previous requests for new types to get an idea of what is required to create new ones. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no, it wasn't to have a "complete set", I was just trying to think of stub categories that might cover a lot of what is not currently described well in any existing sets. LagoonGoose (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed - active admins

Having spoken to a few admins we feel we need at least two new, active, admins. We have 6 active admins at the moment. I'd like to encourage mature, active editors to think about it and offering your services to run for admin. Being an admin is no big deal and is easy to do. Thank you and good luck to those who decide to run. Yours, fr33k man 22:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links:

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman Who do you think are applicable and what are your criteria? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with more than 4 to 6 months of editing fits the basic time rule and the criteria are listed in the link above. I'd encourage anyone who meets them to apply. Please note: we have had admins on simplewiki before who were or still may be blocked on other projects. Whilst not idle we'd treat each case upon its own merits. fr33k man 13:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to state that if you want to be an admin but see that there are already a number of RfAs running not to worry. Put up your RfA as well. The worst thing is we end up with 6 new admins. Trust me that'd be great. fr33k man 14:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree we need more people to help with the workload, I feel we also need to be careful not to encourage candidates who are not yet ready. Over the past few weeks, we have had three unsuccessful adminship candidates. I appreciate there is more of a need now but with activity among semi-active administrators increasing, I do not feel we are in desperate need of new administrators at this point to the stage we need to bring in admins who have found themselves blocked on other projects. --Ferien2 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to step up, but only when I think i'm ready. RiggedMint 12:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take your time. There is no rush :) BRP^ever 13:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Quest 3

I feel like this article is, after a lot of maintenance, now ready to be nominated to GA status. What do you guys think? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is great that a GA nominee has a disputed tag in it.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the error (being the disputed tag as it's not needed anymore, I just needed to reword it). Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's GA material now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's not ready. It uses terms that are not simple. I'm a college graduate of an American university, and I don't know what "pancake lenses"are -- and I can only guess at "passthrough." Kdammers (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simplify "pancake lenses", and "passthrough" is self-explanatory. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 13:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and nominated it for GA status, wish me luck. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More checkusers?

hello, When I look at the requests for checkuser page, I see that most requests get handled by two or perhaps three checkusers. We are all volunteers, abd I think another checkuser might come in handy. Please note that per our guideline only administrators can apply. Also note that the Foundation had some extra requirements (Most notably: adult where you live, identified to the foundation, and sign a special agreement). Also Meta wants 25 votes,70% of them in support,which is difficult to obtain in a week. I nevertheless invite people to apply, being able to handle requests in s timely manner is important. Eptalon (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon and I had a private discussion about this topic and both agreed that at least one new CU is needed to keep up with requests. Please note that not all of the checks done are listed on the RFCU page as check users often perform checks whilst investigating xwiki vandalism and in certain other circumstances. Therefore the visible workload is less than the actual workload with checks per day ranging from 3 to well over 40. I think that candidates must be technically conversant with the IP protocol, CIDR, XFF, user agents and other technical aspects of using the CU tool and should be well familiar with not just WMF policy but both simplewiki policy and the technical documentation on the MediaWiki website. An ability to have a good working relationship with check users from other wikis and the stewards would be ideal as would familiarity with the enwiki SPI process as we very much work together since we are both highly visible English speaking projects. fr33k man 18:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point to note for any new CUs. Simplewiki-only sockpuppetry is pretty rare, basically all of the cases we have are cross-wiki. Which requires an understanding of how to engage with stewards, investigate xwiki abuse, etc. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon perhaps we could "feature" those requests here in the hopes of giving them more visibility. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can hold them the usual manner as always. fr33k man 02:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, I can step up for the role. I am familiar with the policies as a former steward and former wikidata CU. I think I have a decent amount of cross-wiki and simplewiki experience.--BRP^ever 06:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting, if anyone else wants to step up, I am happy to support them. BRP^ever 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BRPever If you want you could, I would gladly support you. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. You're certainly experienced enough. Go for it. It's a minimum of one active CU we're asking for, more would be great. fr33k man 15:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Italy

I created a new WikiProject for those who are interested in Italy. Join now! Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 22:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long-lasting events and their categories

For events that last many months (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic, Russian invasion of Ukraine) or years (e.g. War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), World War II), should they be included in every monthly (e.g. Category:January 2024 events) or yearly category? Should there be some limit to this? If they are to be included, should the article (e.g. Israel–Hamas war) or the category (e.g. Category:Israel–Hamas war) be placed there? Batrachoseps (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be useful. Note that things like the conflict between Israel and other settlers there has gone on since the state was formed (in the 1950s) I think. Perhaps have use the yearly categories for that? Eptalon (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel was formed from British Mandate of Palestine in 1948 fr33k man 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme I'll fill it out Astera🪻 ^talk ^edits 14:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled it out too. 🪐●Hau meon●🪐 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive check user policy proposal

I have begun a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Inactive check users to prompt discussion of a new policy regarding inactive check users. Please use the associated talk page to discuss it. The current page is just a starting point and will change over time. Thank you for participating. fr33k man 16:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman I know a few wikis where similar policies were proposed including globally if I remember, but there was a heavy opposition considering the nature of this tool. Primarily because marking a number of checks as a requirement to keep these tools will encourage rash and unnecessary checks. And secondarily, since the tools involve a lot more than just doing logged checks. Like, keeping other CUs in check, processing unblock requests, cross-wiki coordination, acting based on information shared among CUs in CUwiki and many more. BRP^ever 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there are problems with any policies of this nature but believe there must be a way to dissuade users getting the hat and then never or rarely using it. Just like the project needs active editors so to does the checkuser group need active CUs. If having any of the admin bits truly is "no big deal" then why hang onto a flag you never use. Non-admin editors already have issues regarding the admiration of admins , especially stewards, it is incumbent upon us to dissuade that sort of thinking. Volunteering to give up a hat because you never use it would show that having it in the first place truly was no biggie. However it's done, I see a problem and I seek an answer. fr33k man 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the difficulty in convincing 25+ people that you should have the tool already a mechanism to dissuade users from getting the hat and not using it?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. The hat is so difficult to get in the first place that I'm not worried about hat collectors. Also, all of the problems with this on other wikis apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I don't think we have a hat collector problem here. I greatly admire our admin pool and do not think people ask for tools they don't need. But to get the flag, be active for a while and then peter off is a problem. Getting the flag is difficult for a reason, the information we gather can be very dangerous as we all know what misuse can bring about. fr33k man 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is really about hat collectors. But if there's a concern about too many checkusers, you'd want to remove less active checkusers so you could replace them with more active ones. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, five checks in six months seems like a lot for a wiki of this size. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see two basic problems: Cu logs aren't public, so only a checkuser (or steward) can tell if I ran a check. Also, CUs also run other checks, about which they don't necessarily tell at WP:rfcu. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the logs show who is active and who isn't. My main concern is the RfCU page and the checks that are done there. Brian and Vermont don't factor in because it's obvious that they are very active with the tools. If the inactive CUs were doing similar work that'd be fine and I wouldn't have an issue other than our mutually agreed statement for the need for help with the "public" side of the work we do. We'll always have more work going on in the background than at RfCU due to the nature of xwiki investigations. If inactive CUs want to use their tools doing background jobs then I'd welcome that. I'm talking about someone who uses it a few times a year. We do have a disproportionate number of CUs to admins and that's not going to change. With the spill over of problems coming at us from enwiki we just need help with the request pool. fr33k man 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of times a CU uses the tool per set period of time isn't really important. I'm just wondering how we can encourage colleagues to become more active or step down to allow someone else to take up the fight. Although five actions in six months is a trivial task to achieve . There is enough work to keep us all in an active state. fr33k man 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub, yes getting the hat is hard in the first place but with the ratio of actives to inactives I think it it doesn't dissuade inactivity. fr33k man 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how big of a possibility there was for the RfP to fail. An RfP like yours, where it was unanimous? I can see your point. But if you struggle to get it and only get it by 1 or 2 !votes, then I believe my point applies, since they put in a chunk of work to convince the wider community.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(forgot to ping @Fr33kman).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better idea?

@fenufanga mentioned the idea of a possible reelection of CUs. That would give the community a chance to hold CUs to account for their activity status without using a number of actions per year, which can easily be done in a week by a CU. With a reelection process the question can become one of quality rather than quantity. fr33k man 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are okay. There is no crisis. Looking at the list of users Vermont and Bsad are pretty active, Eptalon and you are pretty responsive in RfCU, Djsasso and Operator are probably taking a break and will be back once ready since their general activity is low, and Peterdownunder is ready to step down if needed. We don't allow CU without admin bits, so I don't think such a drastic new process is needed. BRP^ever 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do believe this could be a good idea, I have doubts that we can actually plan such a thing.

For example: WP:Oversight candidates explicitly mentions the plan to run oversighter elections, presumably similar to EN's election thingy. Such a plan didn't come into action and if we couldn't then with more active editors, then I have no reason to believe we can pull off such a system in our current wiki-landscape.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 25 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 25 September 2024.
If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

Trizek_(WMF), 09:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Iraq

Hello! I've started a Wikiproject for Iraq, i hope to see new members in it! User:Kirkukturk3/WikiProject Iraq Kirkuk 09:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery article demoted.

Hello, I have demoted the article Slavery. It used to be a good article, but with the time, we realized that a lot of work is still needed to make it 'fairly complete'; it focuses on some aspects, and leaves out others. Our article is about 8 times smaller than the one at EnWp. Getting it to GA level again will likely mean re-thinking its structure, and extending it quite a bit. It likely needs a major effort by the community. Eptalon (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowls is now a Very Good Article...

Hello all, I have promoted bowls to very good article. What we still need to do is to write the VGA-specific blurb, that will appear on the main page. Congrats to all who contributed. Eptalon (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the talk page to VGA and archived the section. here and here Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 11:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Eptalon for making the article very good, thanks for that! Thetree284 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog is now a good article

I promoted the article Dog to GA, there's ample support for it in the conmmunit. Thank you to all who helped. Eptalon (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eptalon! Thetree284 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the badges on Wikidata for all three articles (Dog to good, Bowls to featured, Slavery demoted). Batrachoseps (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, September?

Lopburi and Lopburi province.--In the future, one might look at "Lopburi" and "Lopburi (city)".--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:4341:A14B:70BA:C2E8:A97C:69C (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, they should be merged. My question is which title is better. I understand that you would prefer just "Lopburi" for the province, but "Lopburi province" might be better, to match the other Category:Provinces of Thailand. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lopburi province - province. "Lopburi" - the city, if an article exists. 2001:2020:323:F202:5969:75C1:4FA4:2026 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have been merged. Lopburi is redirected for now, but it can be made into an article if someone wants to make a separate article for the city. Batrachoseps (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Batrachoseps: The province article spells the city name "Lop Buri". Do we know which is correct? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. It's transliterated from Thai so there may or may not be an "official" spelling. Some sources use "Lop Buri" (Bangkok Post Tourism Authority of Thailand); others use "Lopburi" (The Guardian AP News).

There was a discussion on English Wikipedia that decided to leave the spaces out of many Thai locations: en:Talk:Buriram#Requested moves. Batrachoseps (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When The Guardian and AP News, concur - then that should be an okay choice, in many cases.--There is a saying, that transliterations from Thai to English, will always be wrong.--When it comes to Royal Thai General System of Transcription - 'your mileage might vary', when it comes to how useful it might feel. (Yeah, at least is is helpful, when it comes to how to pronounce the name Shinawatra (pronunciation, close to 'Sheenna-watt' / 'Shinnawatt') which does not follow the most general pronunciation rules. So, i would say that there is no official transcription that is largely followed by native speakers of British and American-English. 2001:2020:341:E598:192F:C475:5EED:160E (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is creating a lot of articles with titles (with transcriptions, such as "Pak Nam" or "Sri Racha") that might be more used by older generations, then consider letting those transcriptions pass for some months or a year or so. 2001:2020:341:E598:192F:C475:5EED:160E (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about making a new template. Thoughts?

I created User:FusionSub/Seen over a week ago and I am wondering if there would be any opposition to moving it into Template-space.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, but probably not as "Template:Seen". On enwiki, en:Template:Seen exists (as a redirect to en:Template:Read), but it's not quite the same as yours.

Also, please write doc for it if/when it goes to template space. Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Ok, I'll write that up later today (if I remember).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6

Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub: Cool. I have the same notes as I did for Cactus's doc page:

On the main template, put the first noinclude tag on the first line right after the main text, with no line break in between.
In the doc page, you don't need to include the related templates section, or the empty related pages section.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6

1) On the main template? Is that not what I've already done, or is there something I'm misunderstanding?

2) Removed related pages but am probably going to keep the related templates section as it is generated by Template:Discussion templates and I believe that that should probably stay for convenience sake.

Thanks.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub:

1) Sorry, I guess what I said was ambiguous. You have the noinclude tag on a separate line. It should go on the same line as the text above it, so that there is no new line generated in the template output.

2) What I meant is that you don't need the "discussion templates" template. This new template is not part of that set, and doesn't need to be added to it.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I'll do both of that then.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country-musicians raised in 'a state of the United States'

There were some
"List of country musicians from 'state in the United States']],
that were deleted some years ago.--Those, and List of country musicians from California, have little interest, to me.
("Never-ending" discussions about the meaning of 'from', is not my cup of tea.) However,
List of country musicians raised in Texas,
is a list that i might start.--If a person was raised in two or more states, then I am fine with just having that person in "Related pages", or (much less likely) section "Raised in different states".

List of country musicians from California, has some names that 'could end up on two lists'.--However, I am not planning on starting,
"List of country musicians raised in California".--Is there anything more to say then, except: if there are too many protests about "my" list, then it will get taken to AfD?--Remember also to give thanks to those who do a lot of work with categories. 2001:2020:341:DA4B:F071:D4FE:8575:D928 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Simple Wikipedia

I'm a bit confused about what is Simple Wikipedia?? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a general explanation on what Wikipedia is; I have already made 10k+ edits on English Wikipedia. But, what's the difference between English Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:About tells you everything you need to know, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio No worries, In short we use simple words and simple/shorter sentences, If you were to compare say London with en:London they look substantially different, Apologies for not explaining the first time round I just assumed you had read that page first, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New template

I plan to move User:Cactusisme/Replied to templates, any comments? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme The png should probably be changed to the svg version as that is generally what is used in these types of templates.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FusionSub Done Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 08:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have no objections now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this template? -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 The purpose of this template is so that when some mentions you in their talk page/admin noticeboard, and the place a thread of your talk page, you can use this so that they know you have replied. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 11:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: Usually we just do that by pinging, like you just pinged me. But I guess it won't hurt anything. Just please write a doc page for it and categorize it appropriately. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 I have written the docs. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here: User:Cactusisme/Replied/doc Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ツ 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: Thanks. A couple of notes:

In the template, put the noinclude tag right after the text on the first line, with no new line in between.
In the doc page, you don't need to include the related pages section, which I assume you copied from another doc page.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on closing of GAs

Hi, there is a discussion going on about who can close GAs at Wikipedia talk:Proposed good articles#Clarification on closing. BRP^ever 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unimportant wording question

I notice that "attempt" is on WP:BASIC while "try" is not. Both are on WP:VOA. While at https://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/vp/comp/output.pl, "try" is level 1 and "attempt" is level 2. From my personal perspective, "try" seems simpler. Does this mean we should use "attempt" instead because we're trying to use only 850 words whenever possible? I was looking at Ryan Wesley Routh when I saw both words used. Batrachoseps (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thought of mine: "an attempt" - "two attempts" (and simple in many ways).

"a try" - "two tries" (and maybe not simple).--However, in spoken American-Engish (at least), 'try' arguably feels more simple to write, as a verb. 2001:2020:341:E598:E536:4693:5330:C3A9 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed, or tried, to use any word as long as it's on one of the three lists. Does this question mean we should always and try to use most simple word we can? Because I could see problems with that such as with grammar and awkward wordings. fr33k man 04:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Batrachoseps: It's frustrating not to be able to know why words were or were not included on the list. It might be that "try" wasn't included because it has multiple meanings. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Try could mean to take a sample of something, or to hold a trial. Then there's the rugby meaning but that's probably derived from the normal meaning. I'll use attempt. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a 9-10 year old normally know the word "attempt"? I'm not around young kids much, so I'm not sure. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Batrachoseps: I don't know. I didn't mean not to use "try", just to give an idea of why it might not be on the list. Some words can be either simple or complex, depending on how they're used or their specific meaning. In this case, I think the meaning of "attempt" is simple enough. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Batrachoseps (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with a teacher friend and she says the average 9-10 year old would definitely know the word attempt for sure. fr33k man 05:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short desc

Is there a template for the short description? I tried using Template:Short description, but it didn’t work.

I’m not a new editor, I edit on the English version and unfamiliar with Simple English. Tonkarooson (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonkarooson: That template has null content because we don't use short descriptions here.

If you'd like to know other things that are different here, have a look at this list I maintain of things that are different here. The list itself is not policy or guideline, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]