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.
Thanks, Ferien. I'm not sure if it's on commons though, as there is likely a copyright for the logo. Apparently, with the old Zellers logo, HBC didn't renew the trademark and now there is a lawsuit going on because someone tried registering the trademark. Tsugarulet's talk! :)19:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, an important update on the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines:
The vote on the Enforcement Guidelines in January 2023 showed a majority approval of the Enforcement Guidelines. There were 369 comments received and a detailed summary of the comments will be published shortly. Just over three-thousand (3097) voters voted and 76% approved of the Enforcement Guidelines. You can view the vote statistics on Meta-wiki.
There are some next steps to take with the important recommendations provided by the Enforcement Guidelines. More details will come soon about timelines. Thank you for your interest and participation.
Do you want to host an in-person or virtual session at Wikimania 2023? Maybe a hands-on workshop, a lively discussion, a fun performance, a catchy poster, or a memorable lightning talk? Submissions are open until March 28. The event will have dedicated hybrid blocks, so virtual submissions and pre-recorded content are also welcome. If you have any questions, please join us at an upcoming conversation on March 12 or 19, or reach out by email at wikimania@wikimedia.org or on Telegram. More information on-wiki.
(Non-oversighter observation) That isn't possible. You can have your unregistered contributions have their IP address oversighted, I think that's pretty much what can happen. Justarandomamerican (Discuss!) 01:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:UncategorizedPages lists articles that don't have any categories at all. (There are similar special pages for categories and templates.) However, that special page doesn't list articles that are essentially uncategorized but have maintenance or stub categories. Every once in a while I take a maintenance or stub category and look for pages that need content categories, but it's a big task. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From any page, click on "Special pages". You'll find that link along the left side of the page under Tools. (At least, that's where it is in the skin that I use.)
Under Maintenance reports, click on Uncategorized pages.
Special pages can't be watched like "real" pages. You could watch Category:Category needed, but that page is populated when people notice that a page needs categories so it might not have everything. On the other hand, it's more likely to include pages that have maintenance and/or stub categories but which need regular content categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That page has some maintenance categories on it. They're hidden categories, though, so maybe your preferences aren't set to show them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification
Hello all,
The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.
Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.
Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).
A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.
On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team
Hello, the article Catholic Church sexual abuse cases was recently up for deletion, but it ended up being kept, after I copied over (and did some simplification) the EnWP article. I am currently the only editor to have touched the article (after the copying). Note that the subject is controversial, so it is important that statements are well-sourced. Nevertheless, many sections still look complex to me. Eptalon (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, it will soon be April 1st in UTC. For some, this day is known also as April Fools. This is a reminder that if you are going to make an April Fools joke, please stay away from reader-facing pages such as the article namespace, DYK, and the template namespace. If you want to make a joke, you can do it on your user page/subpage. Thanks! — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page23:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the recent changes and noticed that this innocuous article about the economy of USA in the 1920s has some level of a dispute surrounding it, with one IP editor seeming to want things one way and not being happy with what anyone else does. I was wondering if someone could have a look at it. Thanks. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Help needed: Bathyphysa conifera
We recently got Bathyphysa conifera which has an almost identical article at enwp. It is a deep-sea creature, and was first described in the 1870s. Not much seems to be known. I cut out some highly-technical description, but I think the article needs more simplification; references would also help. Eptalon (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eptalon, do you have a source for it being first described in the 1870s? The articles here and on enWikipedia say that it was nicknamed the Flying Spaghetti Monster by "the oil workers who first saw it." The source for this is a Washington Post article from 2015, but from the context of the article I think it's talking about a specific sighting, not the first time it was discovered. This should be reworded if it was known about as early as you state. HerrWaus (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming community review of the Movement Charter ratification methodology
Hello everyone,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC) will propose a ratification methodology for the future Movement Charter on April 10, 2023. The proposed ratification methodology is a result of learnings from previous ratification processes.
The MCDC will organize a consultation period with the Wikimedia Movement to hear feedback on the proposed ratification methodology from April 10 to 28, 2023. People will be invited to share their feedback on the questions mainly via the Meta Talk page discussion, on the Movement Strategy Forum, and during the community conversation hours. The MCDC welcomes your input on some open questions.
Join the community conversation hours
The MCDC invites everyone interested in sharing their feedback on the proposed methodology to join the community conversation hours:
When signing up, please leave a comment if you need language support. Please note that language interpretation will be provided if there are at least 3 people interested in a given language.
Thank you,
On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,
EnWP has en:User:MusikBot II/FixPP, which adds and removes protection templates. It automatically adds ((pp)) and similar templates when a page is protected, and removes them when protection ends. Should such a bot be run at SimpleWP too? I'm not volunteering to do it myself, but I think it could be better than the current system. Individual users have to add and remove the templates, sometimes weeks after the change in protection. The bot code already exists, which might make it easier, although I don't know much about wikibots. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the template will automatically not display an icon on unprotected pages, although it could be useful for categorisation and such. I would not be opposed to such a bot, if someone volunteered to run it. --IWI (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon If you're looking for the code, it's at GitHub. The link is on the bot's user page. The templates just look like padlock icons, so I don't think anything would have to be adapted (except some things might be different, like extended-confirmed protection doesn't exist here). Lights and freedom (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all,
we have discussed this before, and I would like to switch to the new system for GA/VGAs
1 week to decide if the article meets all except at most 2 criteria of the GA/VGA criteria
1-2 weeks to fix remaining issues.
1 week vote that it meets all critera, and can be promoted.
Steps 1 and 3 end with a vote; as everywhere else, minimum 5 votes, 60% support (for the 5 vote scenario, this is a simple majority), any admin can close (judging consensus)
I would like to implement this: All existing candidates have been sitting there longer than three weeks, so they start at item 3
Searching up, it appears to be Three Letter Abbreviation. But I thought GAs and VGAs were fairly well known as Good Articles and Very Good Articles... --Ferien (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear how the new rules work for demotion. Do there have to be 5 votes and 60% support for keeping it at GA/VGA to prevent demotion? Or is 60% required to demote it? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At demotion, the default is to demote. so unless we get the 5 votes, and from their comments it is clear that at least 3 oppose demotion, we demote? - So when commenting, ideally you write more than support or oppose, so that whoever closes, sees what you meant. Or do other people see that differently? Eptalon (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One day left: Yellowstone national Park: 3 votes, all support (5 needed?), Megadeath: 1 suppport (of 5). The GodFather: 3 support/1 oppose, all old. All other artcles have no votes that I can see; which means they'll lose their candidate status (or likely get demoted) in a day.--Eptalon (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this forward again. The process has not been working for a long time. Nothing wrong with not promoting an article. It can always be revised and resubmitted, which is not a big deal if the process moves in weeks instead of months. --Gotanda (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many editors have seen this change? I didn't see it for over a week. I expect everyone was used to the old slow process. Do not see a lot of action pro or con on these. --Gotanda (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do any mole-whacking, I can only post to this board. From the responses on the respective pages, I'd say 3-5 people. So far there are two, perhaps three articles that get a higher participation. But what do you expect, the articles we have "in the queue" have been sitting there for months. DYK gets a lot more participation, probably because finding an intersting fact that is supported by sources is much less work than getting an article meet 10 criteria. Eptalon (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ok to let the editors of an article know directly, or is that advocating too much? I would do it in a neutral manner. --Gotanda (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think it is important to get the things sorted, some articles are like two votes away from the minimum 5 votes. When you do, please try to be as neutral as possible, perhaps point to this thread? Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged people who had edited or commented without mentioning any specific articles and linked to this thread. I also indicated that !voting up or down was helpful to get to the five, so no direct requests for particular votes. Hope a few more people can weigh in. Then, we can keep this expedited process moving in the future. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't supposed to use interlanguage links in articles but do we have Cewbot to get rid of ones linking to an existing article? I want to use them in userspace for articles that I am planning on making and have it clean them up. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me)07:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Cewbot. We used to have a bot that would establish links if it saw an interwiki in an article, but it wouldn't remove it from the article.
It's not that hard to do them manually, though. Click on "Add links" in the left column (under "Languages"), fill in the two fields, and hit Enter. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I'm talking about the Template:Interlanguage link which can be a bit cumbersome to remove on your own, hence why on English wikipedia they are automatically removed by cewbot
An example would be that I have the article Yatagarasu which I want to include on this wiki. So I put it there and it shows up as a red link until the article is made here.
I believe it is against the rules of this wiki to use the template, but it is used over 500 times on this wiki, and I believe part of why it is still used is that it's a pesky template to remove from articles. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me)06:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: Thanks, I forgot about that template. (There are 825 transclusions here, by the way.)
We do have Cewbot, but I don't know if it's approved for this task on this wiki. The task isn't listed on the bot's user page. I would say the steps to get it running here would be:
Make sure no one objects to having the function here.
If no one objects, contact the bot owner to see if they're willing to this function here.
If they're willing, have them make a request to add the function. Thats usually done at Wikipedia talk:Bots.
I don't know about anything forbidding the use of this template, but I have always understood that there should not be inline external links in articles. However, I don't see that in a policy or guideline right now, so I'm not sure. If a policy/guideline can be found, that would support adding this function to the bot. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether there's a guideline about this, but I think the use of the template is a great idea until the article is created here. I don't know why anyone would oppose it! It provides additional information, while also making clear that it's on a different Wikipedia, and still leaves the red link indicating that the Simple article needs to be created. (If you're just talking about removing the template when the article is created here, then that would be good.) Lights and freedom (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few pages like Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2016 on the red list. They arent really wanted. They come from links on templates, I think. Does anyone know how to get rid of them? Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation elections committee (Elections Committee) is, from today until April 24, seeking an additional 2–4 members to help facilitate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee (Board) selection process.
The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election is being planned. New members are invited to join the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee oversees the Board of Trustees community seat selection process. Join the committee and contribute your valuable skills and ideas to the Trustee selection process.
There are eight community- and affiliate-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board. The wider Wikimedia community votes for community members to occupy these seats. In 2024, the Elections Committee will oversee this selection process for the community- and affiliate-selected seats with expiring terms. This process will be supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Elections Committee members sign up for three-year terms and will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Members can expect to contribute 2–5 hours per week before the selection process and 5–8 hours per week during the selection process.
As an Elections Committee member, you will be responsible for:
Attending online meetings between now and the next election (mid-2024)
Attending onboarding and online training in May–June 2023
You can read the full announcement here. Thank you in advance for your interest! If you are not interested but know someone who might be, share this message with them. Please let me know if you have questions.
If those things are all neurodevelopmental disorders, then it would be OK to group them together. I'd have to research to know if they all are -- I'd probably just use enwiki as a guide for that. Where it comes to speech disorders, though, aren't there some that are physical (due to physical problems with the mouth, for example) rather than neurodevelopmental?
As for categorizing, it seems to me that not all of those would be disabilities, and some might not be mental illnesses. (I think there's a difference between mental illness and mental disorder.) Therefore, you might need to apply those categories individually. instead of to the whole group. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speech disorders, dislexia (reading problems), dysgraphia (writing problems) are not necessarily mental illnesses, I think. Eptalon (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: The category can be renamed to the name you give, except that having "by ranking" in the name implies that it is a parent category. Parent categories can contain only other categories, but this category has some individual articles in it. I removed the articles that have same-named categories, but there are still a few left.
The way to rename a category is to move it. You should be able to do that. If you would like someone to do it for you, let us know; otherwise I will leave it for you in case you would like to see how it works for yourself. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's this "Home" tab on Wikipedia? And it takes you to some sort of page looking like profile settings in a community forum? [1] is the image. I wasn't able to use Commons because I was talk-page blocked and I found it unfair. But I shouldn't evade it. Anyways, now that I'm using another tool, well can someone help me with what that image is? Thanks, WPchanger2011 (page, talk, changes he did, more changes) :) 22:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The homepage tab is kind of like a jumping of point for changing articles, while it is unrequired it definitely helps newer editors with finding the right pages and editing types for them. FusionSub (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that Equinox (celestial coordinates) has not been simplified much. I'm leaving it here for discussion on what should be done to simplify it, because it was created by a user who's making a lot of pages, and personally, I'm not entirely sure how much simpler it SHOULD be. Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
All traffic will switch on 26 April. The test will start at 14:00 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.
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 26 April 2023.
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.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.
Other wikis have written agreed policies. On this wiki I have been repeatedly told "We dont do that round here" when there is no sign of a policy. Anyone can say "We dont do that round here". Its a fundamentally elitist approach and a contradiction of the policies of the organisation. Rathfelder (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the page on the French Revolution is not good. This is an important historical event, and in comparison to similar pages (American Revolution, Seven Years War) it has barely any information. I am planning to work on it so it is better. If anybody wants to help me add content and make it a better page, I would appreciate it. 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needless list
I was going through the articles to be copyedited category, and I found List of traffic collisions (2000–present). Based on the title, it's a breach of Wikipedia is not a directory, so what should I do with it? It's pointless, and impossible, to list every single traffic collision. One crash happens every 6 minutes, anyways. Should I rename it to a list of notable car accidents from 2000 onwards? Midknight1342 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting your opinion on splitting the patroller right into auto-patrolled and patroller. Looking in the WP:Requests for permissions/Patroller archives, it appears most requests are denied because the user hasn’t created enough articles for autopatrolled, but would still be a great patroller. I believe splitting this right, like many other wikis have, would better equip users to patrol edits. If this would pass, current Patrollers would be given both rights. What do you think? Illusion Flame (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the possible implementation of this request. I understand that this requires consensus, which is why I posted it here for the community to discuss. You say you have no comments on the idea. Are there any reasons you would oppose? I want to hear feedback. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that if we split this right, we would still need to see good articles created by the people who get it. To patrol properly, you need to understand whether an article is written in the kind of simple language required here. The way we see that people understand that is to see articles that they write. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree, but I believe there are other ways then writing articles. One being appropriate CSD tagging and RFD voting. These show that you know what does and doesn’t belong. Illusion Flame (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historically, the answer to this has been that people who are not able to adequately write content (in line with our policies) cannot adequately determine whether an article is consistent with our policies. I still generally agree with this. Please note that the patrol permission does not allow people to patrol edits; we don't have FlaggedRevs here. It allows people to mark unpatrolled pages as patrolled, and is inherently linked to the ability to create and evaluate article content.
In comparing our situation to the English Wikipedia's (where there are separate user groups)...there are a few considerations. First, they actually seek to patrol every new article. In other words, people with patrol but not autopatrol require other patrollers to review their creations. It's not too much of a burden there. We do not have the capacity to do this here, and should be focusing our patrolling efforts on the content that needs the most help. People who have article-writing experience sufficient for patrol might as well have both autopatrol and patrol, to avoid potentially wasting time of other patrollers. If the combined threshold for the two roles is too high, we can discuss that rather than trying to decouple the two roles.
Second...understanding how to ensure an article is written in Simple English, and thus okay to mark as patrolled, is a pretty high bar. We'd need to see a good amount of article writing prior to granting patrol, imo about the same as for granting autopatrol. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At present this is useless because it is blocked by hundreds of links generated by templates imported from other wikis with no attempt to adapt them to this wiki. When I have edited those templates to try to make the list useable there have been complaints. Is it an agreed policy that we leave templates generating thousands of red links?
For example Template:Gers communes generates several hundred red links to potential articles about French villages. The articles which actually exist mostly are along the lines of Berdoues is a commune in the Gersdepartment. It is in southwestern France. I dont see the ambition to include a few hundred more articles like that as being a priority. This wikipedia is never going to have the millions of articles that would be required. Rathfelder (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; it's useless. However the template doesn't make sense if it doesn't include all the communes. If there's some way to exclude articles on templates from special:wantedpages, that would be a lot better. Lights and freedom (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could Template:Link if exists help with this? For those who may not know, that template can be used to generate a link if a page exists and plain text if it doesn't exist. That way we would still see the names of the places we don't have articles for, but Special:WantedPages would not reflect the use in the template. I've never used the template myself, and I have the following questions:
Would the template appear to link to the page anyway, even if the doesn't exist, just because the code for a link is in the template?
Would this be a performance issue, perhaps generating too many calls to... something?
Would somewhat defeat the purpose of having a red link to encourage creation. Personally I don't really think Special:WantedPages is all the useful even if the links weren't there, because I suspect there are very few people that will create articles just because they are wanted based what I have seen such as how long our wanted ones usually sit on Recent Changes. People tend to just edit the subjects they want to edit. In regards to never having millions of articles There is no deadline. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't defeat the purpose, because we would still see links not coming from the navbox. In case I wasn't clear, I was only thinking of using Template:Link if exists in the navbox, not on red links in other places. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my point was the red link wouldn't be on the navbox, where it can be seen then created. I think the red link being visible in the subject area related to it is far more valuable than it showing up (or not) in a list that the vast majority of readers will never see. -Djsasso (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Link if exists sounds quite positive. I think we need to think more about the needs of readers and a bit less about the needs of editors. A template with loads of red links is not useful to readers at all. If a template is essentially a list of articles that exist on another wiki why do we need it on a template here? And I doubt if a template with a list of hundreds of villages would be very useful to most readers anyway even if they were all real articles. Isnt that why we have categories? Categories respond to changes. These templates dont.
I would be quite happy to use Special:WantedPages to direct my attention to articles I might be interested in, and maybe other people would be too, if it wasnt jammed up by templates. The other problem is that it is sorted by the number of links - so it is dominated by the templates. There may well be other articles which deserve more priority than the endless lists of villages, but we cant see them. Surely it should be used to prioritise what needs doing. As it is it is dominated by list-style articles, which dont look to me like a priority. Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also quite a lot of red links to pages which have been deleted, like Category:Articles needing additional references from February 2015. They are clearly not wanted. Is there any way of getting rid of them? Rathfelder (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair redlinks don't prevent a template from being useful unless the template is only red links. It still contains useful blue links, and lists articles which may be missing allowing a reader to see a gap in our coverage. All of which are useful to the reader. A template doesn't stop being useful just because there are some redlinks on it. To be honest, to me removing them seems to be more for editors sake than readers sake. Categories and navboxes serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive. -Djsasso (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at en:Template:Navbar. It shows a way to customize the view/talk/edit links in navboxes (it's under "Shortcut templates"). This might be helpful with our navbox templates that have no talk pages -- the talk pages would just not be linked. I don't know if our template is currently the same as enwiki's, and I don't know how it's invoked, but this might be worth looking at. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process
As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:
Community members in good standing
Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
Confidently able to communicate in English
The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.
The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocprojectwikimedia.org by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.
@Immanuelle: When you directly quote, leave the quote as it is. There are a couple of ways you can explain complex language, though. If you have a specific example in mind, I could make some suggestions. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GA/VGA process:several demoted/closed, a few still up...
Hello,
it is really frustrating to see how people don't participate in the GA/VGA process. Two weeks ago, I said people should voice their opinion about the current candidates. They mostly didn't. So what's left:
Emu War, as a candidate to GA: was talked about, no visible support votes.
Yellowstone National Park (GA candidate): 3 support votes, no opposes; promote?
Megadeth (GA candidate): 1 support vote
Jupiter (demotion from VGA): 2 votes oppose demotion, one vote supports it.
Once again: the new process requires that (at the end), people "!vote" as to whether an article should be promoted or not. The minimal result needs 5 valid votes (by named editors); voting is the same as everywhere else. A qualified majority (in general: one more than half of the votes) indicates the result: so for 5 votes, we need 3 in favor. So, for Yellowstone, and Jupiter, we are two votes away. All these articles have been there for months, don't tell me we won't be able to get the two votes; but yes, in general there has been little interest. Eptalon (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Emu War is a good article so Support that one being promoted. I'm not really an expert on the other two topics you mentioned so don't want to comment. Blissyu2 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Emu War has three support: nom (me), DovahFRD, and Blissyu2. Even two "no" votes would put it through at this point. Is five votes too many to expect for this process with how many people we have? Maybe try four votes minimum and a 75% support rate? --Gotanda (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know. I was taking the five votes as this would make it the same as the other processes, mainly RfA. We want to avoid promoting something that isn't ready, but we still don't want the situation that a single oppose kills the nomination. 3 votes, two supporting is a pass, so is 4 votes 3 supporting, or 5 votes with 3 support. With 6 votes, we would need 3 oppose votes to kill the nomination. Eptalon (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As both Jupiter and Neptune are articles about planets that we want to get to VGA status, and Saturn is also a VGA, they should probably look similar. What content is missing from these articles? If we have facts about mass or volume, do we want to include them in the intro, in a section of the body, or both? Lights and freedom (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an IP user who has repeatedly added and removed "2023" from the article. They have done this over 10 times. – Angerxiety!14:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to agree on a standard format for the "Deaths in month" pages. I created a sample page at User:Lights and freedom/monthdeaths. Anyone can edit the page if they think the wording or links at the bottom should be different. I hope we can agree on a standard that is best for everyone. Notifying (some) contributors to these pages: @TDKR Chicago 101, ImprovedWikiImprovement, Jim Michael 2, Fehufanga, Auntof6, and Jonny Nixon:
The main things to decide on are the wording at the top, the related pages section, or other links, and the template at the bottom. If this has already been discussed, I apologize. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. I don't recall if it has been discussed before, but I am pretty sure that TDKR who seems to be the main contributor in the area has been working to common format. So would definitely be a good idea to get their input. Although looking at their contribs looks like they have slowed down as of recent. -Djsasso (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
End of the Movement Charter ratification methodology community review
Hello,
The Movement Charter Drafting Committee has concluded its first community review of the methodology draft, which will be used to ratify the Movement Charter in 2024.
The WMF support team will produce a report on the community input in May. MCDC will incorporate the feedback and share an updated version of the ratification methodology in August 2023. The MCDC will continue to outreach to stakeholders regarding the updated methodology in late 2023.
Thank you for your participation!
On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,
Shouldn't the civility guideline be switched to a policy, as the enwiki version is? Users should essentially always follow it, and is not really negotiable as it being only a guideline would suggest. Would there be consensus for introducing it as a policy instead? --IWI (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Support. I actually remember a few months back we had a user who was saying he didn't have to follow this because it was a guideline not a policy... --Ferien (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blissyu2, currently, Wikipedia:Be kind is a guideline. And so at the top of the page Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy. Essentially saying you don't currently have to be civil. --Ferien (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we're voting on changing it from a guideline to a policy then? Okay. As long as I'm clear on that. That seems reasonable then. Thanks. Blissyu2 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "that kind of layout". Do you mean that within each group, the blue-linked items are listed first? It's not forbidden, but I don't think that should be a factor. The items should be listed in some kind of logical order. That could be alphabetical, chronological, or something else. Besides that, if one of the redlinked pages is created, that shouldn't mean having to update the template just because of that. Another factor is that templates here are sometimes refreshed from the enwiki version, so the red and blue links could be mixed again.
Templates full of red links create problems. Why do we need them? Why cant they be unlinked? Many of these templates are clearly imported from other wikis with far more articles than this one is ever likely to have, and they make no concessions to language simplification. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason Simple permits red links more than the regular English Wikipedia does: It lets us know which articles are in greatest need of creation and, once they are made, they're immediately non-orphaned. I believe we have a page with the most linked-to red links. I've often gone there when I needed to know which articles needed creating. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Special:WantedPages? It doesnt show the articles we most need. Its gummed up with links created by templates, many of which are pretty low priority - like the hundreds of red links to French villages. I think links from other articles should be a higher priority, but they generally dont have hundreds of articles pointing to them as some of the template created ones do. Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Partially) gummed up? 43. Torre Pellice (271 links) 44. Val di Chy (271 links) ... 90. Volvera (270 links) 91. Template talk:Metropolitan City of Turin (270 links).
I am medical editor on en:wikipedia and we have a policy about newspaper references-we delete them. What is considered a good reference here on Simple Wikipedia for medical topics.
Barbara (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess would be non or lightly biased scientific test results however, I don't edit medical pages so I am far from knowledgeable on this, this is just my 2 cents. FusionSub (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That really is a difficult question: On the one hand, we want sources that are scientifically accurate. This usually involves a number of terms, which are part of "medical language" that you likely can't do without. On the other hand, when explaining a topic, the linked sources should be easy to understand. Is there a good- "mid-level", of magazines that summarize scienitifdfic texts, but that are still accurate enough, to be worthwile?- I mean, sure you can use "Nature", as a source, but can you use "Scientific American"? - What abut "The Economist"? - What is the rationale behind deleting newspaper references? Eptalon (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some journals are okay (like Nature). Scientific American is not considered a journal. The easiest thing for me to do is personally use the en wp standards for medical articles AND not beat up anyone who may not want to use en wp references. I hope that makes sense. Barbara (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will find a way. Keep in mind that this is Simple English so understandable language is as important as scientific accuracy... Eptalon (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quickest admin right granted
I was looking at WP:CfA one day and I read "There is no set time, but three months is preferred." Does that mean there is a user so helpful they've been granted the admin right before the preferred three months? I'm curious... – Angerxiety!13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone for a little GA to VGA improvement? (Mister Rogers)
I had a look at the current list of Good Articles after the last few were added. (Thank you, @Eptalon!) And, Fred Rogers looks pretty close to VGA. Given our remit for children and education, this seems like an obvious candidate. It is also, sadly, unlikely to need much updating so it can be a stable VGA. Needs all the references checked and a bit of simplification here and there, but looks good if anyone else is interested. I'll just plug away at it now and then. --Gotanda (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reasons for users to add or change edit tags. Edit tagging should be done by Edit filters, so that we don't have users adding improper tags to edits and logs ([3], [4]). I'm proposing that the Simple English Wikipedia remove this user right for registered users. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page02:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta have to agree on that (and I'm one of the named examples!). It's something regular users shouldn't be trusted with, especially when the lone available tag (on my end, at least) labels edits as Possible Vandalism - LTA. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change List of countries and dependencies by population to use the United Nations Population Fund estimates? This would keep the populations up to date with less room for error. It's better than combining info from multiple sources which may not be directly comparable. For example, our current list says China has more people than India, but according to the UN, India is now the most populous country and this is stated at our article India, which results in confusion.
This article has been warred over for a few months. The "typical sign of poison suicide" one started back in 29 April and has been reverted and unreverted multiple times. Fehufanga protected the article for 3 days, but they still are changing the page. I think more protection, or even indef protection is needed.
We have recently become unable to access the WorldCat API which provided the ability to generate citations using ISBN numbers. The Wikimedia Foundation's Editing team is investigating several options to restore the functionality, but will need to disable ISBN citation generation for now.
This affects citations made with the VisualEditor Automatic tab, and the use of the citoid API in gadgets and user scripts, such as the autofill button on refToolbar. Please note that all the other automatic ways of generating citations, including via URL or DOI, are still available.
You can keep updated on the situation via Phabricator, or by reading the next issues of m:Tech News. If you know of any users or groups who rely heavily on this feature (for instance, someone who has an upcoming editathon), I'd appreciate it if you shared this update with them.
Triumphalism. The English-wiki article was deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumphalism - Wikipedia.--I have looked thru that discussion, and I do not see any clear arguments for why (Simple-wiki or) Wikipedia, can not have an article.--A major hurdle in regard to making a stub: the article has to be more than dicdef/wikipedia:Dicdef; Possible sources for avoiding dicdef:
triumfalisme [5] - Det Norske Akademis ordbok (naob.no)
Hello! Please note this is the Simple English Wikipedia. There is nothing we can do about that discussion here. Try asking one of the users who responded to the deletion discussion there. SoyokoAnis - talk19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much point in asking at English-wiki, about possible "arguments for why (Simple-wiki or) Wikipedia, can not have an article".--This thread on Simple-wiki now shows that there has not yet been opposition voiced in regard to a Triumphalism article (as long as one goes beyond dicdef).--Every single point in this thread, has been noted (so there should not be much of a need for repeats). 2001:2020:32F:A754:D068:43F8:E929:806 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about it being ChaptGPT. I doubt it as ChatGPT normally has references (even though they're fake). This one has no references and appears to be written (in most cases) in Simple-ish English. Further this IP isn't globally blocked or known as a proxy nor has this IP posted on any other Wiki. So it's pretty low risk for ChaptGPT. That said, there are no references and some of what's said may need to be referenced. WekeepwhatwekillSpeak!WekeepwhatwekillSpeak!17:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no RfD at the time, I believe. (Or else, I would have posted there.)--Clarification: there is a famous person with a similar name, than the one about to be deleted.--Sorry that I can not "help" any more in regard to this matter. 2001:2020:303:5EC4:7CA1:8BBA:8922:27DD (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers by language...
Hello, I just added the categories Spanish-language newspapers, and German-language newspapers. What would be interesting, is to add newspapers from outside Spain, or Austria/Switzerland/Germany. The better part of South and Central America is Spanish-speaking, Are there any that we could add that are published in the US? Eptalon (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I added some Spanish newspapers to that category (articles that already existed here). The bigger problem is with the English-language newspapers category. If we add all the American, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. newspapers, then it will have hundreds of pages. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a smaller problem though: When you feel you get three pages together, you create a subcategory: There are 3-4 such newspapers in Egypt, 7 or so in Namibia, likely a few in South Africa.... Eptalon (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logically, probably so (recently had the same problem with Canadian ones). but I'd expec most of them to be English-language. Think about the US. poulation: I'd expect to see quite a few spanish ones, perhaps 1-2 German ones. But suppose the Chinese Community of $BIG_CIY wanted a Chinese newspaper, we'd stick that into newspapers in the U.S: along all the others (presumably English ones). Is it worthwhile to have Newspapers in the U.S., ith say 2 French ones, 2 german ones, a chinese-language, a Russian-language one, and two large cateogries for all the English ones, and Spanish ones? Eptalon (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider (in addition), making a template such as, "Template:Foreign-language newspapers in the United States". (The point is: if there exists one relevant template, then it is easy to copy and change that template, for other countries.)--Personally, I hardly ever do work regarding categories - but I do a lot of template-work, on Simple-wiki. 2001:2020:303:5EC4:2468:C2A9:7:5B85 (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any consensus for it to be split, further it's small article as it is. I believe a consensus need to be achieved first before that can happen, and that can best happen on the talk page for that article. WekeepwhatwekillSpeak!
@Auntof6: Actually, since there's a disagreement on the article as to whether or not it *should* be split, I would think a consensus need to occur first. Yes, I'm aware there's not rule that says any split must have consensus. I was speaking in terms of this particular article because of the disagreement about that in it's talk pages. WekeepwhatwekillSpeak!12:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal drugs are still drugs. But is the principle not that categories should follow the articles? If the article is OK called drugs why is the category not? Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some companires also make other things than drugs; what about those that make drugs for animals? - Whats the problenm with the world 'pharmaceutical'? - Are there drugs you need a pharmacy for, where a drugstore won'r do? Eptalon (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cant see how your comments are relevant to my question. These companies may make drugs for animals whether we call them drugs or pharmaceuticals. I think most people would call their products drugs, rather than pharmaceuticals. These products are sold in both pharmacies and drugstores. In many countries there is no distinction between them. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean changing the spelling in articles? Edit notices for the templates wouldn't help that, because those notices would appear when the templates themselves were edited, not when something using them is edited. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changing the spelling in articles. I thought there might be some way to have an edit notice appear in all articles that use one of those templates. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change MediaWiki:Common.js so that an editnotice appears for articles belonging to a certain category. This is how the BLP editnotice works. See lines 300-328.
Presentation on SEWP at the Korea TESOL Conference and what I learned
Last weekend I gave a presentation on SEWP for educators at the KOTESOL Conference in Seoul. It was a two-hour poster presentation and quite a few English as a second or foreign language teachers stopped by to learn about Simple. As expected, most of them were unaware of SEWP. Many of them seemed to become interested. More importantly, none of teachers who had used Simple had ever edited. Some were, as usual, still unclear that really anyone could edit. More importantly, several of those who were aware of Simple thought it was part of the main English Wikipedia. The potential obstacles to editing on EnWP are pretty well-known, so this put people off. When I made clear that Simple was separate and had its own smaller group of welcoming admins and editors they seemed much more interested. Also, they had not noticed the Schools Gateway. Maybe that can be more prominent somehow? I wonder if there is a way to make it clear that this wikipedia is not run by EnWP? (If anyone thinks that would be helpful.) I can send or link to the abstract, but I thought self-linking here was not the way to go. Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making my point so perfectly. It is linked in the box at the top center of the Main Page. But, it does not get noticed. Perhaps people are more intent on the search box and miss the other text in that block. --Gotanda (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the schools gateway page should be made more prominent. I have seen student editors making drafts on the article space when they are clearly not ready. Right now, it's one of the top links of the main page. On average it receives 21 views per day.
A technical solution would be to place an editnotice for anonymous users who are editing through a school IP, but that might require blocking the school IP ranges. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page02:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may need some visual separation. There is just a lot of text under the search box. Using the small chalkboard from inside the gateway in between to separate "How to write Simple English pages · Useful pages · Simple talk · Categories · Help" and "Schools Gateway (for users who want to make changes from a school)"
Also, suggest a small edit:
Schools Gateway (for users who want to make changes from a school)
Schools Gateway (for students and teachers who want to make changes from a school)
Hello all, I have just promoted Megadeth to Good article. Congratzulations to everyone who contributed. There are no more good articles in the queue... Eptalon (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to the Simple English Wikipedia. I come from the English Wikipedia, and I have a few questions about this site. Is this the right place to ask? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
articles can be merged as a result of a requests for deletion (the Simple English Wikipedia's equivalent of the English Wikipedia's deletion venues) or through a talk page discussion
Articles are not promoted to GAs through a single-reviewer review process. Instead, the articles are discussed and voted on at WP:GA. Featured articles are called very good articles (WP:VGA). Though VGAs are featured on the main page, like the English Wikipedia, there is no "Today's VGA".
Not in an "official" capacity. The Simple English Wikipedia does not use WikiProject talk banners.
4. How does notability work here? It seems to me that anything with an article on the English Wikipedia is fair game, even if the Simple English article has no sources. Is this true?
5. Patrollers patrol and mark pages as patrolled. There's no draft namespace or an AFC system here. IPs are not restricted from creating articles either. The patroller right is granted to those who have experience patrolling pages and have created a decent amount of articles that don't need to be patrolled.
6. If you are using the old vector skin, this can be done with the "Add Links" link. Once you click it, enter the short name of another Wikipedia where the article exists. Usually this will be enwiki for the English Wikipedia. Then, enter the article's title in that Wikipedia. If you are using the new vector skin, this link is called "add interlanguage links", and is somewhere on the right. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page00:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About that "add interlanguage links" thing: it requires a Wikidata page. How do I attach a Wikidata page to an article? QuicoleJR (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR: Welcome! Since you're new here, you might like to look at this list I maintain of things that are different here from the way they are on English Wikipedia. The list itself is not a policy or guideline, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, leave a message here or on my talk page! -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selection of the U4C Building Committee
The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.
I protest this category, which has no general or agreed meaning. Categories for pages should always be comprehensible, and we should have a system for discussing those which seem out of place. In the category: "Activist" is a random set of biographies which someone has though proper to include in the category. There is a sense in which almost everyone in a wiki is notable or else there would not be a page on them. Alternatively, they might be limited by their political activity, in which case many of the present biographies should come out. Because the term was not discussed, just put up by an IP, I think we should limit new categories to those which have been discussed and about which there is demonstrable agreement. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its very unsatisfactory as an undifferentiated category. I'm doing my best to put articles into more specific categories. In particular I dont think it's sensible to put people into both Politician categories and Activist categories unless there is some clear distinction. But its been going for 12 years and its well populated. I dont think we are going to delete it, so we need to manage it. Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Setting boxes as collapsed
All large boxes should be set as collapsed as the default. They are usually brought over from En wiki, and list many pages we do not have. One which irritates me is the infobox for Ancient Philosophers. Unfortunately my attempts to set it as "collapsed" have failed. I'm not too good at these things! Could someone more adept turn to the box, and set it for me? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This version [simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilozerka_(hromada)&oldid=8866006] of Bilozerka (hromada).--The map from English-wiki [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilozerka_settlement_hromada], is not part of an infobox. Can that map, easily be moved to the Simple-wiki article? 2001:2020:327:8F43:113F:8CA8:30BB:B2E2 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Done - looks like a big step has been taken for now. Thanks.
@Davey2010: I've imported it, but it's just a redirect to Template:Infobox award. When it's just a redirect like this, there's no problem creating it yourself. If it's not a redirect, I'd say it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Importing is probably easier, and we don't mind doing them. There are just some things you need to check after an import, things like categories, making sure you get all the subtemplates and the doc page, and probably other things. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Auntof6, Ah so sorry I didn't even check the en template so didn't realise it was a redirect sorry about that, Okie dokie I'm currently creating an article so once I've done i'll quickly amend that page,
So could I ask what's the point of imports as in I guess why does the history need to be there ? Sorry I don't mean that in an obtuse way I guess I just don't understand the purpose of imports,
@Davey2010: I'm not sure what page you are talking about amending, but the template I imported should probably remain a redirect. There isn't a need for a separate template for different kinds of awards.
The point of imports? To save typing or copy/pasting? To make sure things are the same? To avoid re-inventing the wheel? I don't know that the history needs to be there; you just get it with the import. Actually, not even all the history necessarily, because you can import just the most recent version without earlier history. Importing all the history can take a really, really long time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That kinda makes sense kinda doesn't - I get it if you can't be bothered copy/pasting but my entire work here is literally copy/pasting (and then amending in preview) so there's nothing I gain my coming here asking - In fact I lose time by coming here because it's took an hour for it to be imported and I could've done it an hour ago and had the article completed, Also the time it's taken for me to come here and write this again I could've easily just done it myself and had mostly everything done,
What I'm getting at is alls I'm doing is making someone do work and use a tool for no specific purpose or real benefit to either of us?,
I should also say I'm not having a dig at you or admins here - We all have a life and none of us can be here 24/7, Anyway I'll probably stick to creating these myself but nonetheless thank you for your help today it is greatly appreciated, Take care, Warm Regards –Davey2010Talk18:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This nonsense going on with en:WP:LTA/GRP is not only ridiculous; it's potentially avoidable. Take a look at 102.50.254.145; today they were blocked for vandalism here at Simple English, but at the English Wikipedia, the same IP has been blocked for being an open proxy since 31 May. Most of GRP's other IPs are proxies. Why aren't proxies preemptively blocked here? Our policy on open proxies says "Open proxies allow malicious users to rapidly change IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns" and "Open or anonymising proxies may be blocked from editing for any period at any time". NytharT.C09:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar Proxies should be blocked preemptively technically, per the NOP policy. However, the Simple English Wikipedia don't have a proxy blocking block such as the one on the English Wikipedia.
I do see a problem though. ST47ProxyBot is an admin bot. ST47 is not an admin here. While the Simple English Wikipedia's bot policy doesn't mention anything about adminbots (since they are rare AFAIK), I think a local admin should be the one running an admin bot here. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page11:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of what you're saying. I pinged ST47 because I think they can help us get a bot set up here; it would take some time, but we might at least be able to get started. NytharT.C12:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nythar, this is the kind of thing that should be done on a global level. Setting up an open proxy bot would come with some positives but for a wiki of our size, it is a massive response to what is essentially a single problematic user. Some stewards used to mirror proxy blocks done by ST47ProxyBot, however they stopped doing that for some reason. That would be a better solution as GRP is a crosswiki vandal. If we did decide to go down the proxy bot route for our own wiki, it's worth noting that English Wikipedia is one of the only, if not the only, wikis that has proxy bots. I feel a better use of time would be spent trying to prevent GRP's vandalism in other ways. --Ferien (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proxy blocking (collateral damage?)
Pre-emptive proxy-blocking? Does that mean that I (and maybe a few other somewhat-talented wikipedia-users) will lose access? If that is the case, then please leave one talk-page open, so that one can apply for: "I would like to add text (or change text) on page such-and-such. Please unblock my preemptive-block, for any time-frame, so that I can make the suggested changes."--If I get preemptively blocked, and nothing else related - works out: "I enjoyed my stay. Thanks". 2001:2020:327:8F43:553A:D521:E93A:3BC (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the no open proxies page on meta that describes the policy in detail, exceptions and information about contacting stewards in the event your IP is blocked as a proxy. As you are logged out, you will have to either turn off your proxy/VPN or if your proxy is necessary, contact stewards so you can have a new account created that is exempt from proxy blocks. --Ferien (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User_Talk page comment
What is the policy on deleting user talk page comments? I want to delete a certain comment made by a now blocked user on my page but I don't want to accidentaly break any rules. - FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FusionSub: You can delete anything from your user talk page, as long as you don't change the meaning of comments. For instance, regarding the latest thread at your talk page, preferably remove the entire thread (and not just a comment here or there, which may appear to change the meaning of certain comments). In most cases, though, it is best to exercise your own judgement. The guideline Wikipedia:User talk page lacks information about this. NytharT.C08:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: Without a doubt, and oddly enough, their writing style matches User:KyurPju who is not blocked, but stopped editing after both being spoken to and they had an article deleted for being advertisement.
They both put an article in place in one shot, including references, and have the same errors in their references (using advertisements and not reliable sources). There are no re-writes, mistakes or any issues that cause them to go back for correction, so yes, it's either a PR agent / sock / ChatGP. WekeepwhatwekillSpeak!12:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have moved onto a method where they create a new account to make each article. Some articles are created by IPs too. Admins may want to keep watch for this. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vector 2022: change vs edit
On the old vector skin, the two buttons to edit a page say "Change" and "Change source". On Vector 2022, they say "Edit" and "Change source". Should "Edit" be changed to "Change"? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to check: Monobook, MinervaNeue, and Timeless also use "Edit" and "Change source". I'm surprised this wasn't changed many years ago. Was there a decision not to use "Change" and "Change source"? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]