Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

BioRef changes[change source]

I recently started using the BioRef source citation format. I copied it off One complication, though: has an article on Darrel Frost (author) and not on Amphibian Species of the World (database), but SEWP has an article on Amphibian Species of the World and not on Darrel Frost. A redirect does a little for now, but how do I update this template so there's a link in ASW and not for Frost, Daniel R.? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you want the template to link directly to ASW instead of Darrel Frost? I think this would have to be fixed in Module:FishRef, but wouldn't it be easier to just create a short stub for Darrel Frost? Griff (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like it would be better to link straight to ASW instead of Frost because ASW is more relevant. I expect the template only links to frost instead of ASW because they didn't have a proper article on it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So.. just to make sure I have it right, you want it to look like: Frost, Darrel R. "ASW Home". Amphibian Species of the World, an Online Reference. Version 6.0. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Retrieved 27 September 2019.
...or do you want to leave both wikilinks in? Griff (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally both, given Simple's policy of leaving red links as they are to encourage article creation. But if only one, then ASW and not Frost. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And it's 6.1 now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait. I have updated the module appropriately. Let me know if you have any further issues. Thanks for all your work on amphibians. Griff (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Griff with two Fs! Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Change the languages on the log in page[change source]

A year ago, and a few months before that, the idea was discussed to change the languages on the login page. I have looked at the data a bit more to see which languages would be best.

Here are the medians of February, March, and April monthly pageviews by country:

Extended content

In total, about 12M were listed by country. This is supposed to exclude bot views.

  1. USA (3M)
  2. India (3M)
  3. South Africa (1M)
  4. UK (655K)
  5. Canada (390K)
  6. Russia (344K)
  7. Philippines (288K)
  8. Germany (280K)
  9. Pakistan (199K)
  10. Australia (197K)
  11. Uzbekistan (152K)
  12. France (136K)
  13. Italy (112K)
  14. Netherlands (112K)
  15. Nigeria (109K)
  16. Singapore (107K)
  17. Kazakhstan (98K)
  18. Indonesia (96K)
  19. Iran (89K)
  20. Malaysia (75K)
  21. Bangladesh (68K)
  22. Turkey (64K)
  23. Spain (63K)
  24. Japan (62K)
  25. Belarus (61K)
  26. Sweden (59K)
  27. Ukraine(Neo-Nazi) (53K)
  28. Poland (53K)
  • So the most significant countries that might need accomodation are India, Russia, Philippines, Germany, and Pakistan, in particular.
  • I strongly support adding Russian. Not only does Russia have a lot of readers, but so do many other countries in Central Asia and Eastern Europe that do as well. All these countries have grown hugely in readers since February (probably due to the ongoing war and looking for outside media sources), but they were high even before. I estimated that about 6% of readership speaks Russian.
  • Chinese is the world's second most spoken language. There aren't many pageviews from China, but that might be because Wikipedia is banned there and they use VPNs that appear to be from other countries. How much is Chinese spoken in Malaysia and Indonesia?
  • There aren't that many readers from Arabic speaking countries. People might use it a bit in places like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, but I'm not sure. At least they use the Arabic script, which may be easier to read.
  • German: quite high on the list; Germany and Austria make up about 2.5% of pageviews. But I think most of them speak English.
  • Dutch: I've read 90% of people in the Netherlands speak English. Not that useful.
  • Esperanto: Remove. Not useful.
  • Hindi: although it's only spoken in one country, that country makes up 25% of pageviews. I've read only 10% of Indians speak English, but about 60% speak Hindi.
  • French: somewhat useful. France has a fairly high number of views, so does Canada.
  • Spanish: There aren't that many pageviews from Spanish speaking countries, but it makes up a large part of the world. Also, 25% of pageviews are from the US and there are a lot of Spanish speakers there. Maybe they make up a lot of readers of simple english. Spanish might also be somewhat common in the Philippines.
  • Portuguese: Portugal and Brazil together make up about 0.5% of pageviews. Not that useful.
  • Swahili was mentioned before, but although it could be good for inclusion to have an African language, less than 1% of views come from countries where that language could be used, and a lot of them speak English or Arabic.
  • English is an official language of the Philippines, so Tagalog is probably not needed.

So my suggestions: English, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, Arabic?, Spanish, German?, French. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that the younger Chinese-Indonesians don't know a lot of Chinese, definitely not enough to read the login page in zhwiki. Some don't even speak Chinese at all! With how language education works here, people are more encouraged to use Indonesian. The fact that Chinese was restricted during Suharto's reign needs to be taken into account as well. As for Malaysia, I have no idea.
So far, I support removing Esperanto, adding Hindi and Chinese. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm for that also. And maybe Italian should be considered. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lights and freedom Where are your sources? All you say is "I've read" but you don't list any sources or even names of said sources. JanKeso (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JanKeso The number of pageviews by country are from here. However I'm not going to put a source for every fact I stated. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with Hindi and Chinese, and removing Esperanto. Griff (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this up again. I've posted this twice previously, but it always got bogged down. A few comments. Esperanto and Dutch need to go at the very least. Some things to consider in the language selection: serving current users, attracting new users, and messaging. The data on where users come from is useful, but needs some thought, too. For example, English may be the official language of the Philippines, but native Tagalog and Cebuano speakers are 40M people. Official language does not always equate to readers. Selecting some languages that are very widely spoken even though we (currently) have fewer visitors from those countries may welcome them in (i.e., Arabic). Finally, Wikipedias in general are often perceived to lack diversity. The languages we select do say something about our intentions. Simple can be a useful center for translating articles. Being more open to an African language might be a good idea. At least one south Asian or Southeast Asian language should be added. That could be Hindi. Gotanda (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: another approach is to simply adopt a common standard from elsewhere. The official languages of the UN are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Thanks. Hope the login page gets an update. Gotanda (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point in the discussion we have unanimity among the participants that Esperanto should be removed and a very strong consensus for removing Dutch. There is also a pretty strong consensus for adding Hindi and Chinese. If nothing else, these improvements seem to have broad support and no opposition. What is required to make sure this doesn't drop by the wayside yet again? Thanks --Gotanda (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Griffinofwales@Macdonald-ross@Auntof6@Eptalon @Ferien (I pinged the more active admins that I see but please feel free to bring in others) - Admins I wanted to ping you on this. As it’s stated it has been brought up a couple of times with no changes. There is input from 2 admins on this thread and appears to have consensus on the changes requested. I also just looked at the metrics and I am in agreement as well with what is being said. I believe admins can change the entry page and I feel that some of the main editors should be able to have some input on this. If it is rejected it would be good to know why it can’t be done. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your responses. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree that there is consensus for these four changes suggested by Gotanda. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I could interpret an opinion from 10 users: @Fehufanga, Macdonald-ross, Griffinofwales, Ferien, TTP1233, Gotanda, PotsdamLamb, ImprovedWikiImprovment, and Djsasso: and myself. All seemed to support removing Esperanto and adding Hindi. At least 9 seemed to support adding Chinese, and at least 6 removing Dutch. Sorry if I got anyone's vote wrong. Lights and freedom (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thank you @Lights and freedom for this invitation. Being a Wikipedia user, I believe that the language must be added only if it has higher demand to read. If Hindi is added it will be good as many Indian especially Hindi speaking people does accommodate with English yet. So they would prefer reading only hindi articles. So I do support for hindi.
    But I refuse to give consent about other languages as I'm not aware of it and I don't want to give wrong facts. But as I said, adding languages having higher demand to read and understand may be a great initiative. That's all from my side. Jyoti Roy (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

running into fluency problems on French, Spanish then Italian Wikipedias[change source]

Over several days (14) I ran in serious problems on the three Wikipedias listed above. The more serious was happening especially on the Italian Wikipedia. When I created articles on the 1988–1990 and 2020–2022 North American droughts, somehow, they didn't think I was that fluent and erased the articles. Are there any Wikipedia embassies with whom I can discuss such problems as these on Wikipedia websites? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 23:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela: I don't know of any, but I'd ask this: are you using automated translators, such as Google translate or some other translation software? Those will almost never give a well-written result. They don't work for translation regular English into simple English, and they wouldn't work to translate either form of English into another language. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 - I'm fluent with 416 Italian words; I did use a translator but it was not Google. Italian and French languages are very hard for Americans like me to really learn. I want to try and be more fluent in French, Italian and Spanish languages over the next two-three years before I edit the Wikipedias again though it's really hard. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropical Storm Angela: That number of words is a very small vocabulary. Besides that, it's also important to be fluent in the grammar. Using an automated translator is not enough on its own, no matter what translator it is, unless you are fluent enough in the target language to clean up the translated text. It's especially a problem when translating from English, because English has so many idiosyncrasies, such as words with multiple meanings.
Writing in another language might help you become more fluent, but Wikipedia is not the place to practice. That's because Wikipedia articles need to be well-written to begin with. Other editors are not there to help people learn the language, and shouldn't be expected to copy edit for you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with the translator programs is that it takes so long to hunt and peck and add each accent mark or other special character not used in English in the browser window one at a time that it just makes sense to use the program and take five minutes instead of twenty. The tricks that I've heard about to just type them in don't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6 is correct. But, there is a way to use those other wikipedias to improve your French, Spanish, and Italian: work the other way around. Look for articles on those wikis that do not have English language articles yet and translate from them into Simple English. You will get some reading input which is very helpful in building your eventual fluency. You will also be building interlanguage links back to those articles which helps them. Just a stub, but here is one. Gotanda (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for confirmed account[change source]

I want to enable but due to I am new to Wikipedia I am not finding any option at Special:Preferences not finding Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed anyone with any help or suggestions? NP83 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed account status is automatically given to accounts that do not present any issues. It is not something that is requested. To help you get started, check out this handy guide. Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Griff (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[change source]

Hello. There is an article in the standard English Wikipedia that probably fits in this Wikipedia as well, but with sources talked more about here instead of the sources on the original English article.

"Reset talk page" block of text[change source]

This standard block of text is insanely large. It could easily be redesigned. Why don't we do this? Our talk pages are almost never used constructively, and this huge block doesn't help. It does seem to stop users once it's up. You might think "well, that's good", but we might be a better wiki if users made suggestions instead of (or additional to) changing the main page text. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this header? Griff (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This template is mostly used as an alternative to deleting because deleted talk pages tend to turn people off of creating it again to ask something. This template isn't really to stop people from doing anything other than just being a notice of the purpose of a talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification[change source]

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.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good and very good article categories[change source]

It seems like a mistake that Category:Good articles and Category:Very good articles are in Category:Wikipedia article improvement, but Category:Former good articles and Category:Former very good articles are in Category:Articles. This will draw more attention to the former GAs and VGAs than the current ones. Lights and freedom (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem weird. Auntof6 and Eptalon did the original categorisation so maybe they know why it is that way? I support flipping them. Griff (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get what you are saying. I would hesitate to advertise demoted articles too strongly, because it might suggest all it needs is a small change. In most cases of demotion, the page would need complete re-writing to be a candidate again, and some that are left would never make it again if we really looked at them. And this is very clear the further one goes back. But, that aside, I suppose they are in Category:Articles because that's all they are now.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium overlap[change source]

We have a serious overlap between Flemish Region and Flanders. They both refer to the same thing, and have been written independently of each other. One should be chosen as the heading, and the content of the other examined to see if it adds anything useful. A redirect can be put in place of one of the articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they are being merged, then Flanders should be the title, because it has a much longer history than just as the region of Belgium. Lights and freedom (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I noticed that earlier as well. Are any affected Wikidata items taken care of? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed your query. I don't know. I just rewrote as a single page, Flanders, with a redirect from Flemish Region. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines[change source]

Hello all,

We'd like to provide an update on the work on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. After the conclusion of the community vote on the guidelines in March, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Board asked that several areas of the guidelines be reviewed for improvements before the Board does its final review. These areas were identified based on community discussions and comments provided during the vote. The CAC also requested review of the controversial Note in 3.1 of the UCoC itself.

Once more, a big thank you to all who voted, especially to all who left constructive feedback and comments! The project team is working with the Board to establish a timeline for this work, and will communicate this next month.

Members of the two prior UCoC Drafting Committees have generously offered their time to help shape improvements to the Guidelines. You can read more about them and their work here, as well as read summaries of their weekly meetings in 2022.

Wikimedians have provided many valuable comments together with the vote and in other conversations. Given the size and diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are even more voices out there who can give ideas on how to improve the enforcement guidelines and add even more valuable ideas to the process. To help the Revisions committee identify improvements, input on several questions for the committee’s review is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to get your ideas to the Committee - it is very important that viewpoints are heard from different communities before the Committee begins drafting revision proposals.

On behalf of the UCoC project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Female scientists[change source]

It has been decided that Category:Female scientists should be kept (Rfd). As I mentioned, there are less than 200 female scientists with articles here, excluding mathematicians, engineers, and social scientists — I don't know if those are classified as scientists or not. Most of these people are listed here: User:Lights and freedom/femalescientists. There are undoubtedly more female scientists on enwiki.

I think most editors want to keep these categories because the number of female scientists is small compared to the number of total scientists. We're not here to debate the reasons for this, but the point is, most people here believe that being female is a defining factor for a scientist, which deserves a category. The female scientists should absolutely not be removed from the main scientist category while the male scientists stay in the category, because this would be discriminatory. So there are probably two options: make the female scientist category non-diffusing, or make another category for male scientists and make both diffusing, like Auntof6 proposed here.

However, it is not totally clear that there is a consensus for keeping the category. The people who voted here (which resulted in a keep) were all different than the people who voted here (which resulted in a delete). So this is probably the right place to have this discussion.

If there is to be a category for female scientists, it might make sense to divide it somehow. For example, by subject (astronomers, biologists, chemists, etc.). In my opinion, it should not be subcategorized more deeply than this: i.e. no subcategory for "female molecular biologists" or "female nuclear physicists" — I think this makes the system too complex. A female molecular biologist could be categorized in both Category:Molecular biologists and Category:Female biologists. We could also discuss if the category should be divided by country or continent. In my opinion, Category:German female scientists and Category:Female biologists might make sense; Category:German female biologists might be going too far, but I don't care if others decide differently. Lights and freedom (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the consensus on the female scientists discussion was to keep. However, that decision could still be overridden by a larger discussion about categories for females. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic is important, then anyone - not myself - can start List of female scientists from Oceania, and Lists from the other continents.--Regarding categories: I feel that those editors who do most of the work here - in regard to categories - those editors opinion should be given extra consideration or "weight".--For now I am leaning towards that Wikipedia should be restrictive regarding the mentioned categories. (Arguments which might be adequate for not having most or all of the mentioned categories, can include "Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages for female scientists".--Clarification: I still think that List of female scientists from South America, is an okay List.) (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion is about categories, not lists. I haven't heard anyone object to lists of females. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lists as well as categories are (or should be) limited to notable people. There's no point in listing people just because they do a job. The exception would be where they are elected to do the job which is itself a notable job. No-one wants to see lists of botanists just because they are botanists. Notability is the key, otherwise lists become meaningless. Some list have been proposed which are in effect "people I happen to know", or "people in my part of the world". Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem we had (and still have) with such categories is that if I take two people from the category, they should be comparable. They should be similar, because they have done similar things, etc. In the case of "scientists", the meaning is so large, that it is hard to imagine comparing two of them: Take Martin Heidegger (philosopher of religion) and Marie Curie. What do they have in common? Eptalon (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I don't understand what you're saying here, because Martin Heidegger is not a scientist, so he wouldn't be categorized with Marie Curie. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross True, but the issue we're discussing isn't notability, it's whether there should be separate categories for females. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, anyone, create a List of female scientists from (any, one) continent.--That list only needs at least 4 or 5 scientists - for a mediocre start.--Then, we can say: "Look, we do not need the female scientist category", so now we can merge the category, into the list (or those "continent Lists").--Merge category, before Delete category - that might work for some here, or many.--Detail about a "continent List": If a country has a blue-link scientist, then no red-link scientists from that country should be added.--Any "continent List" should have a link to the relevant English-wiki category (and anyone can enjoy their category-tree that has all the bells and whistles. Thereby those who do the work on Simple-wiki in regard to categories, will have less work ahead). (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC) (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC) (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, science is not nationalistic. It is discipline-based. A female astronomers will work with other astronomers, and may not ever meet with women working in most other disciplines. The reason they may be notable as women is that science, especially the "hard sciences" like physics, have always had so few females. At last, this is changing. So it is reasonable to search for "female physicists". On the other hand, no-one has any difficulty working with someone from a different country nowadays. Modern communication makes that almost irrelevant. So country-based categories, at least in science, are less useful. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From my own experience: When I did my studies more than half of the students of mathematics were women; in biology/biochemistry/chemistry, I'd say there were about the same number of women and men. Problem though: if you look at prestigious awards (in hard sciences, that is: anything where mathematics has an important role) are there the same number of women and men? - In that respect, "female scientists" is probably not a useful classification, as it is difficult to compare an astronomer to say a chemist - "Female chemists" /"Female astronomers" would be fine though. Classifying by country is probably not useful either: Hard sciences are often resource-intensive (-> "expensive"), so likely you won't find many in developing countries. Look at the prestigious awards, how often were they awarded to people who are not from the 38 OECD countries?--Eptalon (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even today, a smaller proportion of science awards are given to women than men. I agree with @Eptalon that we should separate female scientists by subject: probably astronomers, biologists, chemists, earth scientists, ecologists (if this is separate from biology), and physicists. I don't know if physicians, mathematicians, computer scientists, data scientists, engineers, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, archaeologists, linguists, or political scientists are considered "Scientists". Opinions? Lights and freedom (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly any scientists have "any difficulty working with someone from a different" gender "nowadays. Modern communication makes that almost irrelevant. So" gender-based "categories, at least in science, are less useful." (Attribution: the quotes are from June 5, in this thread.) (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think there is a value to categories for both nationality and gender. Lights and freedom (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Awards Templates[change source]

I am requesting help in using the Template:{{awards-nom}} or any of them. I am working on putting the nominations and wins on the page for Joel H. Cohen but no matter what I use, it comes up either short a box for the citation number, and if I put the citation in any other field, it breaks the template. I tried Template:{{awards table}} but that also does not work. I am looking to put in the year, institution, title of the award, nom or won, and the citation. Any help would be appreciated. I can do it with a wiki table, but I can not guarantee it would be uniform as the template says it is its purpose. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: Can you put it on the page so we can see what you've tried? Even if you then take it back off, it would be in the history so we can see it. Or is it already somewhere in the history? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: It’s done. You should see it in the history. I just applied the template then removed it. I did not put any info in. When using a template though, should it not auto close instead of using everything below it? If you add just the template and preview you will see everything below that entry in the table. Thanks for checking it out! PotsdamLamb (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: I can't be sure without any entries in the table, but it looks like maybe you just need to close the table. The {{end}} template is good for that: just put it right after the awards table template. Maybe the awards table is just headers, in which case it would not and should not auto-close. If there's anything else needed, I can't tell with no entries in the table. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: You should be able to see test data in the history now. I tried it two different ways with the data. I also found the template and added the Ref block to it. Thanks again! PotsdamLamb (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Look at an example in another article. A good one is the Grammy Awards section in Celia Cruz. The detail lines have to be formatted in table format, and the {{end}} template goes after all of that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: Perfect! That’s what I was looking for. Can we put that portion into the doc and show an example code on the template? Thanks for your help! PotsdamLamb (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: We can probably copy some of enwiki's doc page, although when I tried just now the formatting wasn't right. There must be some difference in the templates. I can look at it tomorrow if it's not taken care of by then. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Also, remember to include the name of the award, for example Writers Guild Award, Emmy Award, etc. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 The template was missing items like most of the doc and all of the styles. When I copied them over, it seems to have fixed it. If you look at Joel H. Cohen it is now correctly displayed. I will work on adding the rest of the won and nom today. Thanks again for your assistance! PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School class at work[change source]

A class has started this morning without notifying us (normal). Rather than chase every hare, I suggest Euro-based editors go through the new pages later today and wipe out (propose for deletion) any which are not coherent contributions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki vandal NEEDS to be reverted[change source]

Here. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems like they've been global-banned, we should be good(?) neptunepie | chat? 15:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They still have a lot of global vandalism that hasn’t been reverted. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwife[change source]

Should be reverted or severely pruned. This is the sort of thing which gives us a bad name, and deservedly so. In addition to its being objectionable content for young people, it is technically promotional and one-eyed. Exactly what we ought not to want. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally leaning on deleting Hotwife and Femdom, both created by the same user, who is CU-blocked on Commons. With the context that this is a long-term problematic contributor, I think it can fall under G3. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ran a check, LTA with some spam history. I've deleted both as G3, they're clearly bad-faith articles that harm the project. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Merge[change source]

I wanted to get thoughts on possibly merging Emmy Award into Primetime Emmy Awards. they are essentially the same, except that the latter is much longer because it contains more information. The first was already incorporated into the 2nd already as basically the opening statement. The two most advertised ones are the Primetime Emmy Awards and the Daytime Emmy Awards.

I look forward to everyone's input on this. PotsdamLamb (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth keeping both. They have separate Wikidata items. We might also one day have an article on the daytime Emmy Awards; that data is extensive and worth separating from the general topic. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2200 article bot job[change source]

{{infobox Switzerland municipality}} access the data on Wikidata for many of its functions. An important use is the population of the municipality. Rather than have to constantly update the articles as new data becomes available, the template will call for the data from Wikidata if the template does not have that data manually entered. This means the data would always be relatively up to date. It would at least be as up to data as what wikidata is and that is likely to be a lot more recent than the limited manpower here can keep it.

For this to work, the template on each page would need the population and accompanying reference removed from the template. It already tracks each use where the population is manually entered in Category:Pages using infobox Switzerland municipality with manual population. At this time, there are just over 2200 pages in that category so doing this manually would not be productive. This would need a bot or at least AWB and the flood flag. The template also tracks a variety of other details but while it can handle several other things, only the population is something that is going to be ever changing. The other options, such as name changes, can be handled manually with little effort due to their infrequency. Pure Evil (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pure Evil: What is it you are asking? Are you looking for someone to run AWB to update these? I know @Djsasso: usually has these in his toolbox and runs them occasionally. I’m not sure if this is one of them? What happens if the wikidata property is overwritten manually? I know I’ve done some work on wd and things usually stick unless there is a process (such as a constant running bot to overwrite the numbers from the intended sources). Thanks I’m advance for providing clarification. PotsdamLamb (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking so much as pointing out. Actually, looking at the history of random entries, the page seems to ignore any population information provided locally and solely use the wikidata. This 2007 version of a location sets the population to 926 as of 2005 but if the page is previewed, it shows 999 as of 2018. As its a 2007 page, that is predicting the future. That edit also sets the coordinates in an outdates manner and defines the name. The one could change while the other could not, but that is minor and not likely to be much of an issue. All this change would do is remove information that is both incorrect and being ignored by the template. There does not seem to be any noticeable change to the finished project as this only streamlines the page by removing unused and outdated information. Pure Evil (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil: Please keep me in the loop for whatever is decided here. I've been doing a lot of work with articles that use that template, mostly fixing or removing unrecognized parameters. I wouldn't want us to be working at cross purposes.
Also, why are you talking about this template specifically? This template is a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, as are all the others in Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement. Do the others not do the same thing? -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this issue when I noticed the category while randomly checking articles. The template in question, while a wrapper for Infobox settlement, has been modified to default to wikidata rather than just pass the information it is given. This is not an issue with the base infobox. The wrapper has to have been modified as this one was. Spot checking the others, these changes do not seem to be wide spread although it would not be a bad thing if they were. The changes are useful and improve the pages for the users while minimizing the effort that is needed for maintaining them by using wikidata as is seems it was intended: a source of data shared by all projects.
Note that this is in no way an urgent job. The situation has existed for a year already and if it were ignored for another year, no one is likely to even notice. I happened upon it by chance and decided to inform the group. What is done with this information is for other to decide now. Pure Evil (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil: I agree: I would like to see us taking more advantage of Wikidata. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6@Pure Evil I have been going though and updating the wikidata. There are a few issues with using data in the templates:
  1. Almost all the parameters in data are lowercase which include names that should be capitalized.
  2. Not all templates (with the underlying LUA allow the data to be brought it.
  3. You can bring in items like census, however, on the data you to see them all to normal and the most current needs to be set to priority to get it work correctly.
  • Downfall: A lot of editors do not know what they are doing in data which can cause other issues as well. We can set up some test sandbox templates, docs and LUA and try them out. Data is a huge set that can technically be used to fill out an entire Infobox where it pulls in the information, if the Infobox is set up that way. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 08:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle Category[change source]

Hello all. I just noticed that twinkle does not have an option for warning editors about removing RfDs from pages. One example is Pradeep Rajput and here is the Diff. I had to use the non-remove of QD templates. Can we get that added to the appropriate areas on Twinkles menu please? I can assist if needed. Thanks! PotsdamLamb (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb, a few months ago I had asked for a similar fix: Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_142#uw-rfd_and_other_warning_templates, however this wasn't done because of the brittleness of the twinkle code we use here. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 21:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Articles[change source]

What are the reasons why an article can be deleted? How do I request deletion of an article?

Can I request that an article be deleted if it was created by a globally locked user?

Is there a notability policy in the Simple English Wikipedia?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Here are some pages that may help you:
  • WP:Requests for deletion: describes the two types of deletion request we have: discussed deletion, aka RFD, and quick deletion requests, aka QD. The page on quick deletions describes the specific reasons a page can be quickly deleted. For discussed deletion, you can nominate a page for deletion giving a reason not covered by the QD options.
  • WP:Notability: describes how to establish notability, and has links to pages that describe this for specific subject areas. If we don't have a page for a specific subject area, we use English Wikipedia's rules as guidelines.
You can request that an article be deleted if it was created by a globally locked user, but the request may fail if the article has merit on its own.
Thanks for your questions. Hope that helps, and let us know if you still have questions. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to our project: With deletion, we tend to judge the article on the base of what it is/says. Who created it, is generally not as important. So, no, simply being created by a user who is blocked at another project won't be enough to get the article deleted. Same thing with globally locked users: If their contribution to the article is acceptable, there's no reason to delete the article. Eptalon (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to English Wikipedia[change source]

I hope that this isn't a stupid question. How do I enter a link to a page in the English Wikipedia? Also, how do I create a red link for a page that isn't in the English Wikipedia? I tried something of the form for en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garashov Farhad, and when I put in the closing brackets, it becomes a blank entry. What am I doing wrong? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, you need to add another colon before the en, like so: :en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garashov Farhad, which gives en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garashov Farhad. Hope that helps. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fehufanga - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: However, please do not include links to other Wikipedias in articles here. If there is no article here, just leave the link red (unless, of course, you want to create the article). Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Sockpuppet Account[change source]

How do I report a sockpuppet account on Simple English Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon we have no dedicated SPI page but sockpuppets can be reported at WP:AN (if there's CU results already), and a CU can be requested at WP:RFCU.— *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 22:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile phone use in schools[change source]

We should definitely have a version of this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Macdonald-ross What do you mean? I know it is accessable via mobile. Are you talking about more functions for the web based (.m.) or the app (which in my opinion needs a lot of work)? PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means mobile phone use in schools, the article. --Ferien (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: If you can't or don't want to create the article yourself, you could add it to WP:Requested pages. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that anyone takes any notice of that page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated words[change source]

I understand that articles should contain words listed in Basic English. But as I think about writing a typical article, I feel the need to use other words. Some that come to mind are "type" for a kind of object or concept, and "parts" for the constituents of an object or concept. What is one to do about such cases? How to tell when a non-Basic word is Simple enough? David spector (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, try to stick to the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist as much as possible. When this can not be done, link the term if an article exists. Also, try to keep words as unambiguous as possible. When given a choice, use the word with as little different meanings as possible. Movie has one meaning, film has many and motion picture has one but is not as simple of a term so movie would be the best choice. As an article exists, it should still be linked to the first time the term is used. This handles many cases, but at times you will just have to wing it and hope for the best. Another, possible larger issue, is sentence structure. Short and precise sentences should be used. "Flowery" adjectives and big words to fluff up the language should be avoided. Keep it simple, direct and to the point. Pure Evil (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David spector: Good summary by @Pure Evil. It's true that the word lists aren't enough in many cases. Here are some other things you can do:
  • Use Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist as a reference instead of the more limited list you linked above.
  • Aim for an 8th-grade reading level. There are some websites that analyze text and give you a reading level.
  • When possible, replace a complex word or phrase with other words that explain it. You can also explain it, maybe in parentheses, after including the term.
  • Link to a related term, if the term itself doesn't have an article. If closely enough related, you can even create a redirect for the term, as I just did for Gastroenterologist.
There's one more that I hesitate to mention because I discourage its use, but I'll mention it anyway because it is used sometimes: linking to Simple English Wiktionary. That should only be done if Simple English Wiktionary actually has a page for the term. I discourage doing this for a couple of reasons. One is that it makes the reader have to go to a different site. The other is that there is often already a local page that can be linked instead, but even if there isn't it's acceptable to leave the link red here. If terms are linked to Wiktionary and we later have an article created that could be used, nothing and no one is checking all those Wiktionary links to see if they could be changed to point to the new article. We also lose the red link that could let us know an article that is needed here.
By the way, if you'd like to know some ways that this wiki is different from other Wikipedias, you can look at this list that I keep. The list itself is unofficial -- not policy or guideline -- but it does link to relevant policies and guidelines where possible. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an editing tool that can be used to check a text for words that are not on the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist? Kdammers (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers: I don't know of one, but maybe someone else will. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two cheap tricks: #1) Linking, like Ao6 says. I write lots of articles about frogs. Scientists use the term snout-vent length when they say how big an amphibian's body is, because then they can compare animals to each other without fussing with legs or tails. So I put The frog is 44 mm long [[snout-vent length|from nose to rear end]]. The casual reader gets simple words. The interested reader can click for the specific term.
#2) Don't translate from another wiki. Write from scratch. When you see that used the exact right term (like saying "term" instead of "word," for example) it's soooooo tempting to think that no lesser term will do, even if you would have thought of "word" with no trouble working from scratch. (I write froggie articles here on Simple and then translate TO, heh heh heh). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an opposing point, I almost never create from scratch. I find that doing so tends to leave out many important points and can lead to other issues. When discussing a topic, it is usually best to start with an outline of what is going to be said. Without one, the editor is more likely to ramble on. In this case, for me, the outline is the other wiki's page on the topic. It normally has all the key information that is needed, it just needs to be made easier to understand. This part requires a bit of skill and practice to translate and restructure syntax on the fly. The editor need to rewrite as they go and quickly decide what they need to keep and what can be edited out. Trimming sentence structures, rewording statements, linking words and terms, removing fluff.. over time it becomes second nature. This can often lead to a more thorough and accurate article and helps avoid original research and bias as the editor is not the source of the information only its translator. Pure Evil (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for this great advice! David spector (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion at Talk:China[change source]

There is a discussion about merging articles at Talk:China. Please provide your opinion if interested. Lights and freedom (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RedWarn[change source]

How do I get RedWarn here on Simple English? I have it on the English Wikipedia. Nythar (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar Redwarn is only for enWP. It does not work here on simple due to the way it was programmed. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 19:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Then how come User talk:Ashley Furniture HomeStore's revision history has warnings which are tagged with RW (which is RedWarn)? Nythar (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example please? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 19:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Click User talk:Ashley Furniture HomeStore and then go to "View history". You'll see edits with "RW 16.1" in their edit summaries. Nythar (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it does work, I believe you need rollback permissions, of which you do not have here on simple. It can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback. However, since you just started editing here, I do not think it will be granted to you. That, however, is up to an administrator. I hope that helps you. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. Nythar (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and thank you for helping out here. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When wondering how someone is doing something like this, it is usually best to look at their commons.js page for a hint. In this case, User:Neptunepie/common.js has the call:
That is the likely source of them doing it. Try adding it to your commmon.js page and see if it works. Pure Evil (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil: It worked! Thanks! Nythar (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pure Evil Thanks! It worked for me too! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Line 1430 of the script shows that it will load Neptunepie's config page instead of the actual user. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh That is why I copied it from the redwarn page and not a user page. :) I just cannot figure out how to load the template packages. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Authority Controls[change source]

Is it ok if an AC is empty so when Wikidata does get populated, then the article gets populated? It looks like it just goes into the cat of AC with 0 elements? I am working on pulling in WD to some articles with the statements so that way its one place to update it which should alleviate some of the work we need to do. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 02:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Improvements update[change source]

Making this the new default

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more. The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features
  • Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
  • Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.
How to enable/disable the improvements
  • It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
  • On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.
Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to set my Appearance option to Vector (2022), but the entire Appearance tab is grayed-out and I can't make changes. None of the other tabs are grayed-out. David spector (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David spector Usually they are grayed out because you have a global override. You would need to go back to the main wikipedia you work on to make the change or just on the bottom below the skins check the box next to Set a local exception for this global preference. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 20:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout proposal and discussion[change source]

I am proposing changes to the guidelines on how an article should be laid out by sections and templates. Please join the discussion by going to Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#Article_layout_proposal_and_discussion. I look forward to everyone's comments and hopefully we come together as a community to improve simple. Thanks! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done?

Relative clauses and gerunds[change source]

Is it recommended to use relative clauses or gerunds here? Which would be considered simpler? Is it important to totally avoid both of them?

For reference, a relative clause often starts with a word like which, whom, or that. A gerund is a verb ending with "-ing" that functions as a noun and can be some kind of modifier, although I don't know the exact terminology. For example, the sentence using a relative clause:

Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom, which gives a negative charge to that side, and a positive charge to the opposite side.

which could also be written, using a gerund, as

Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom, giving a negative charge to that side, and a positive charge to the opposite side.

or alternatively, separated into two sentences with a period, semicolon, or dash(?) as

Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom. This gives a negative charge to that side, and a positive charge to the opposite side.

Lights and freedom (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedom I think 'Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom, giving a negative charge to that side, and a positive charge to the opposite side.' sounds much more simpler and -ing and other endings are in the simple english dictionary. However, I also feel the 1st one is just as good. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a relative clause:

Atoms that are used in nuclear fission, such as uranium, are heavier than iron atoms.

which could also be written as

Atoms used in nuclear fission, such as uranium, are heavier than iron atoms.

but I think the second version would confuse readers, is this true? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as a non-native speaker I can see the second being more confusing. Gerunds can be many things, they can be nouns or adjectives. As for the first set of examples, I see the third option being the most simple, followed by the first. — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 23:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to write Simple English pages tells what kind of sentences to use. Use simple ones. "Simple sentences are easier to understand than complex ones. The simplest sentence structure in English is subject-verb-object-period, subject-verb-object-period and so on. Try to use the simplest sentences that make sense."
Sometimes an additional word or repetition can link two short sentences to make the relationship clear and to add coherence.

Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom. This gives a negative charge to that side, and a positive charge to the opposite side.

Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom. This movement gives a negative charge to that side. It gives a positive charge to the opposite side.

signed --Gotanda (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its just me (also non-native speaker), but I have tried to replace gerunds with relative clauses, or whole sentences. To take the example sentence: Electrons sometimes move to one side of the atom. This movement gives a negative charge to that side. It also gives a positive charge to the other side.--Eptalon (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the also / other here really help. Sometimes the clearest, simplest writing gets longer. Gotanda (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request from a user (Associated acts) in template musical artist[change source]

Please remove "associated acts" from Template:Infobox musical artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhones (talkcontribs) 03:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox musical artist
 | background        = person
 | honorific_prefix  = 
 | name              = 
 | honorific_suffix  = 
 | image             = 
 | image_upright     = 
 | image_size        = 
 | landscape         = <!-- yes, if wide image, otherwise leave blank -->
 | alt               = 
 | caption           = 
 | native_name       = 
 | native_name_lang  = 
 | birth_name        = <!-- leave empty if the same "name" -->
 | alias             = 
 | birth_date        = <!-- {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} for living people supply only the year unless the exact date is already WIDELY published, as per [[WP:DOB]] -->
 | birth_place       = 
 | origin            = 
 | death_date        = <!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} (death date first) -->
 | death_place       = 
 | genre             = 
 | occupations       = 
 | instruments       = 
 | years_active      = <!-- YYYY–YYYY (or –present) -->
 | label             = 
 | current_member_of = 
 | past_member_of    = 
 | spouse            = <!-- Use article title or common name -->
 | partner           = <!-- (unmarried long-term partner) -->
 | website           = <!-- {{URL|}} or {{Official URL}} -->
 | module            = 
 | module2           = 
 | module3           = 

per enwiki Fhones (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fhones Hi. Thank you for pointing this out. It does not need to be removed. It can be removed individually or left blank when it is used without causing any issues. There is nothing wrong with it being in the template, especially since it can be called in as a what is called a "child template". Thank you though for bringing your concern to us. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Actually, since we periodically refresh our templates from enwiki, we would eventually lose this parameter anyway. Enwiki removed it last month following this discussion. I actually think removing this could be good, because I've seen some articles that go way overboard with how many things they list as associated acts, and the association isn't clear. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will it also remove the data with it or will it become orphaned, i.e. "associated acts=auntof6" and when cleared will it just say "auntof6" or will it remove that as well? If it removes all of it I do not see an issue, but if not, then all the articles that have that property would throw errors. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pages using infobox musical artist with associated acts was created today to hold pages that use the parameter. We could use that to find articles that need to be changed. If we remove the parameter from the template, then nothing would display in the articles and we could take our time dealing with it. Some pages could just have the parameter removed, but with some we might want to replace it with other things. Maybe you'd like to read the enwiki discussion to find possible answers to other questions you might have. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of one to create 4 more works like a clock going back in time lol. I see the justification. Hopefully we could get a generated list through AWB and someone who has the knowledge to be able to remove that parameter and put it into another, however, the computer will not know if they are current or past or a spin off. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 01:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to deprecate Template:Geobox[change source]

I have started a discussion on deprecating Template:Geobox. To participate, please go to Template talk:Geobox#Proposal to completely deprecate this template. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and help on Atom[change source]

Hi everyone. We are trying to improve atom towards good article status. We are looking for editors to help out on the talk page, especially in the discussion at Talk:Atom#Lead. Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women judges from the U.S.[change source]

Hello all, I recently created the category "Women judges from the United States", to reflect the fact that probably about half of the "American judges" will be women. I also hooked the category in "American judges", and started populating it. The problem is though, "American judges" seems to be well-populated, with over 200 entries (still remaining). So If anyone got some free time, feel free to move a few women into the new category. Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon, for simplicity and consistency, shouldn't this be "American women judges"? After all, the parent categories are "American judges" and "Women judges". — *Fehufangą✉ Talk page 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be unhelpful, but "Women judges" is crass and ungrammatical. Likewise "Men judges". "Female" is the adjective for women, so the terms for categories should be "Female judges", and "Male judges". Being simple does not mean "being simple even if it's not correct".
Next I looked at the geographic word "American". If unqualified, it applies to the whole of the Americas. If intended for the U.S.A. the category would read "Female judges in the U.S.A." If the category includes Canada, it becomes "Female judges in North America". All this is standard use of the English language. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "Female judges form the U.S.", then? Eptalon (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I would say "Female judges in the U.S." and "Male judges in the U.S." Our judges from the U.S., to my knowledge, do not go to other countries and be judges as they are only familiar with our laws from local to federal (depending on their appointment). PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem starts with the American judges. If the American Judges are truly American, some are form Canada, and possibly some are from Mexico. If we truly wanted to introduce gendered categories, we'df need a Male American Juges, Female American juges (and possibly LGBT+ ones). Being gender-aware is a lot of work, that's why its not done for most categories. Eptalon (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we want to really go that deep into these categories though, do we? There are a lot of judges who do not release personal information about themselves. I also know here in California, all of their information is redacted including their license plates so they cannot be traced. I think if we leave it "in the U.S." we would not need to go deeper as we are not saying where they are from or their sexuality. So IMHO I think just the two I listed will be good enough coverage. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason not to categorize by gender. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 So should we just do U.S. Judges or do we have that (or something similar) already? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into the discussion about what the word American means. It's the standard used as an adjective form for the United States. That's how enwiki uses it for the judges category. If we want to avoid using the word as a demonym, we could do what Commons does and not use demonyms in page names at all. That would mean saying things like "Foo from the United States" instead of "American foo". -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: "In the U.S." means inside the borders. That could mean female judges from elsewhere who are visiting the US. If we have to categorize by gender, I think "of the United States" (we spell things out) would be better. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I agree on the United States. But I also wanted to point out that "From the United States" could mean the opposite of "In the United States." What if we did something along the lines of licensed, active United States judges, etc. That would take out both of the In and From portions? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 22:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: "From the US" is not the opposite of "in the US". "From the US" can mean multiple things the way it's used here: it can mean the person was born here, lived here, worked here, or something else. "In the US" means inside the borders, no matter what they're doing or whether they lived or worked here. "Of the US" would mean judges that work in the US judicial system, which I think is what is intended by these categories.
I don't think we need to specify anything about licenses or being active. The category would contain people who are not active for various reasons: they might have been disbarred, or they might have died. Also, judges far enough back in US history might not have been licensed at all, but were still considered judges. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I can get behind the "Of the United States" with no issue. That would take the questions out of all of it. I only used that as an example, not meant to be the reasoning for all of what it may encompass. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 23:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life[change source]

I was trolling through pages on racism, when I came on White Australia policy. It describes the many ways the government used to make sure it got "the right kind" of immigrants. One way was to give unwanted people tests in a language they did not speak. So I looked at the source, and found that it was unreadable!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need help[change source]

Changes not talking place even after following directions - Tsugaru let's talk! :) 21:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsugaru: Remove the same thing from your global.css. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 23:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Also is there another dark theme script I can use? --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 00:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@つがる - お久しぶりです!お元気ですか。 PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PostdamLamb: こんにちは!はい、元気ですよ!ひさしぶりですね!メーセージをありがとうございます。あなたは元気ですか。あなたの日本語は上手です!--Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@つがる 私はよくやっています。私は翻訳者を使用しています笑! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I see! Well it's a good software you are using! Also would you mind translating this message down below to English? I am not trying to be rude, but this is the Simple English Wikipedia, and I think we should refrain from not using English on discussion pages, just so everyone can understand. I wouldn't mind if this was a conversation on a user talk page. Thanks! :) --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @つがる. I agree with your comments. Even in English, though, it would be helpful if personal conversations were kept on user talk pages instead of here. Thanks, all. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I stopped. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After I posted this the translation below was posted. --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: 上のメーセージを見て下さい--Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{Message Translation for english speakers} PotsdamLamb said to me "long time no see how are you" and I responded to him "Hi. I am doing well Thanks for the message, how are you? Your Japanese is good!" Next message I wrote "Please see the above message" Note the translation may not be 100% direct, but very close --Tsugaru let's talk! :) 02:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied back "I am doing well. I am using a translator lol!" PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 02:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird things starting to pop up in articles[change source]

So the past couple of days I have seen some really weird things popping up in articles. One such example is in Chris Stewart where when you go into edit mode and go to the bottom you will see a mass of text that starts with {{Persondata <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. -->. I have also seen box like things on Stephanie Morgenstern and you can see it on the bottom of the page where it has a succession and predecessors type box that is usually not used in actors articles. Typically I see those types of things in something that has some meat behind it like royalty, presidents, etc. Does anyone know what this about and where it is all of a sudden coming from? This just started happening about 3 days ago. Those are two I found today. Admins, any thoughts? Should they be removed if we find them? Thanks, PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: The persondata template is a deprecated template that is still in a lot of articles. I remove it when I see it. It should not be added to existing articles, but it isn't causing any issues for the articles it's in.
The succession template can be used anywhere there is a succession of something. It's usually used in cases of political office or royal positions, but it can also be used for other things. It makes sense to me on the Morgenstern article. Auntof6 (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Ok to both, but shouldn't the succession template be removed and the "| predecessor =" & "| successor = " in the Template:Infobox person be filled in instead like 90% of the other articles that have the infobox? PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: No. Look at the documentation for the template. The predecessor and successor parameters refer to things specified in the title or office parameters. Being the voice of a cartoon character is not a title or office. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Gotcha. thx PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Speakers/Readers[change source]

Does anyone here (fluent in English) know Greek? I need help with translation on an article that was brought over with a lot of Greek references so I can find the citations and fix the article. Please let me know. Thanks! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 03:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb: What do you mean by "find the citations"? If you mean find them on the internet, it's very possible they aren't there. References can be from print media, not just online media. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I understand that but without knowing the titles I can’t try to find anything to help improve the article or do the translation as you stated earlier. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 04:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: I don't understand what you're thinking at all, but that's OK. You seem to be saying that without translating the titles in the sources, you won't be able to do the translation. That seems circular to me. Even if you get the titles translated, they may not help you find anything. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PotsdamLamb: Also, it might help others if you give a link to the article you're talking about so that anyone who has the skills can look at it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Nicosia Airport Is the article and all I need is the translated names of the citations please. PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 06:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for South America stub[change source]

Greetings editors - I have started a discussion on possibly creating a South America Stub. Please do not post here, but instead join in on the discussion at the projects talk page. Thank you! PDLTalk to me!OMG, What have I done? 00:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is out![change source]

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

Hi, Greetings

The winners for Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is announced!

We are happy to share with you winning images for this year's edition. This year saw over 8,584 images represented on commons in over 92 countries. Kindly see images here

Our profound gratitude to all the people who participated and organized local contests and photo walks for this project.

We hope to have you contribute to the campaign next year.

Thank you,

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]