Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 164

Question - QD bot

Hello everyone. I hope you are having a good weekend. Recently I came up with the idea of creating a bot that would help us insert QD templates into newly created articles. The operation would be simple: if the article is less than 100B (this is only an approximate value) and does not contain any links, references, templates, etc., QD G2 would be inserted into it. The idea here is to work with only obvious editing tests, where the editor inserted random letters/test sentence as a new page. For now, however, I haven't tried to write any bot, I just wanted to ask if the community would mind if it was possible. Thank you and best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be prone to too many false positives. Not everyone adds all of the content in one go. I would rather see this as a tag/log-only edit filter rather than a bot that tags for QD. No QD criteria fits this anyway. G2 is one of the most misused QD criteria in my opinion. It should be reserved for cases where it's a test. A 100kb unsourced page about Telemann's Wassermusik (its history, musical analysis, performances) is not a test page. A page that only contains:

• John was here lol
• Please make an article
• So basically idk
• etc...

are test pages and eligible for G2. QD criteria should not be applied loosely, but strictly. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We have edit filters for some of the cases Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I suppose those are Special:AbuseFilter/11 and Special:AbuseFilter/107. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 13:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fehufanga, for clarification: I meant 100B here, not 100kb (I made a typo and misled you, I'm sorry :)). BZPN (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Maybe you meant 100 bytes? 100kb (100,000 bytes) is a very long article. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right, I meant 100 bytes... thanks for pointing that out! BZPN (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem, there are so many things like documents and pictures that weight some kb, that it sounds more natural to say kb instead of just bytes. I didn't even notice at first, it sounded right. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

An edit filter could be put in place that stops very small new articles by new users, I don't really see why very small articles need automation to be removed. They aren't exactly harming anyone. We don't get so many of them that it's a lot of man-power, and they aren't indexed, so there isn't any reason to get to them very quickly. Even if all of the above wasn't true, we would still require administrators to delete the articles in question. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, writing an abuse filter is also a good idea. However, such test edits definitely harm us - Wikipedia is not intended to test edits in the main namespace. That's why we have WP:Sandbox. Test edits only waste editors' time inserting QD templates and administrators' time deleting them. BZPN (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/19 does exist, but it only tags the edit. From the logs the false positive rate appear to be small enough that elevating it to warn might be acceptable. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree BZPN (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Template issue

Hi, Over at Manchester Victoria station, the text under Manchester Exchange is showing as:

Manchester Exchange

toward [[Template:S-line/National Rail Historical left/LNWR station|Template:S-line/National Rail Historical left/LNWR]]

I don't suppose anyone knows how to fix this?, I've updated the S line template and Template:S-line/side cell but nothing's worked, Thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 22:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010: This appears to be due to the presence of the previous parameter. I removed these parameters and the template should display correctly. However, if incorrect information is displayed, please revert my changes. Have a nice day! BZPN (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like it was probably because there was only one such parameter in one place, which could cause an error between templates without this parameter. BZPN (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BZPN, Brilliant thank you so much, I have noticed though at en:Manchester_Victoria_station#Westbound_services it says Miles Platting and here it now says Terminus, I didn't know if I should just remove the template and add that name back manually ?, Thought I'd ask you first as you're amazing with this sort of stuff :), Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for fixing that too it's greatly appreciated, I certainly would've messed that up so I'm thankful and greatful you replied and helped so thank you :), Have a great day, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010, That's very nice of you :). I tried to fix the appearance to be the same as in enwiki, but the word toward kept appearing under the station name, and there was no way I could hide it. Therefore, I simply did it with a "rail line" template with appropriately set parameters. You can't tell the difference visually, but in wikicode it's a bit more complicated. I hope this isn't a problem :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay I didn't even notice the enwiki one was changed, Oh no of course I don't care about the wikicode tbh - As long as it matches enwiki externally then I'm happy :), Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I need help 2401:4900:3762:E1B5:581E:DE74:1DE6:BDA2 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Ternera (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's just a test, not real question. BZPN (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like someone is just testing the waters with us. Let's keep an eye out in case they have a genuine question or need assistance with something. In the meantime, shall we continue with our previous topics or explore another current event for the Simple English Wikipedia? 162.156.70.174 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Internet

The article about the Internet is very incomplete. It talks about how people use the internet, but gives no explanation of how it works, technically. Internet is a level 3 vital article on English Wikipedia, so it's a high priority. I'm leaving this message in hope that someone can help, as I don't know enough about internet infrastructure to write it myself. Depextual (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we can discuss what the article should be? People using a browser to surf on the web, to watch TV, to make phone calls are not necessarily aware that they are using 'the internet'. Do they have to? Does it help to add complexity telling that some services are connection oriented, others are connection less, that there is a quality of service for some...

Should we not also talk about the dangers of impersonation, of people getting blackmailed or exploited in one form or another? What do you expect he article to be? Eptalon (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I expected to see more about the technical infrastructure of how it works. Depextual (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I agree there should be more on that. Just need to keep it as simple as possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

'Thread-starter' has removed "Hotspot (computers)" from 'Related pages'.--One is suggesting that user:Depextual should maybe focus more on using Talk-page, if s/he is not dead sure about relevance of stuff in the article. (If it was only a one-off honest mistake, then no big deal, in a Good-faith perspective ...). 2001:2020:345:9919:652F:B1E5:8E63:3ED4 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake, I just thought it wasn't very useful as a link as there's already a link to Wi-Fi. It's okay to keep that as a link. But I will be removing the red links. Depextual (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing from "Related pages", is fine. (Removing from the main body of the article - no, don't do that.)--If this post is regarded as polite, then fine. 2001:2020:345:9919:516E:786F:F685:925 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That's okay with me. Depextual (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Depextual - i suggest that you go to the relevant Talk Page, and make suggestions about new sections (that also English-wiki is using).

If you can start any one of the following sections, then that might be good place to start:
Infrastructure, Service tiers, Access, Mobile communication, Internet Protocol Suite, Internet protocol, IP Addresses, Subnetwork, Routing, IETF; Applications and services: World Wide Web, Communication, Data transfer.--Good luck (while i fix other articles, and wait and see what specifics you will bring to the table.)--If this post is regarded as quite polite, then fine. 2001:2020:319:AC4F:F053:6E48:DDFF:F61C (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The following link, mentions some specific challenges/'problem'

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Depextual&oldid=9926815
. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The article does not have the word WiFi/Wifi or Hotspot.--Anyone can add that (while i try to figure out which Fun fact, i will choose to add to the article). 80.67.37.2 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

WiFi and Hotspot are now included. Depextual (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Outline and 'overview' ", is now a section in the article.--It is largely copied from
  "Outline of the Internet" (article) at En-wiki.--If several users can check out if our section, is on the right track - then that will be fine.--The 'lede' of that section, should likely be merged into the lede of our "Internet" article.--Good luck (but not for me, in regard to that). 2001:2020:345:9919:516E:786F:F685:925 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Kendall Jenner is now a good article

Kendall Jenner is now a good article, thank you to everybody that has helped the article get to this point.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@FusionSub Congratulations! Kendall Jenner had Good article, thank you Raayaan9911 10:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Article feedback

Hi, Could people kindly review User:Davey2010/sandbox2/VW Golf and let me know their thoughts please?, The individual articles (Volkswagen Golf Mk1) etc have already gone live but they can be changed too,

I'm not a great lover of the way the sources are throughout the sentences as you seem to lose readability ?, I don't know if I really need to list the years for every model, Maybe these are too detailed,

Anyway wanted to get peoples feedback before pasting this to the Golf article, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your article looks great. I have no objections to it and support its replacement with the current article. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback it's much appreciated, Happy editing, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Davey! The article looks great, but in my honest opinion, if you cite the same exact source, I'd only link it once per sentence. For example, when you say something like "from YYYY^[11] to YYYY^[11]", you only need one ref tag in my opinion (unless you are citing two different sources).

Btw is it OK if we make minor changes to your sandboxes? I would never change a sentence or something big like that, I just wanted to remove an extra comma in the second generation section. I don't like changing someone else's sandbox without asking first (unless I'm removing vandalism, but that's not the case, obviously). Happy editing! :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dream Indigo, Thanks so much :),

The cite thing - For instance 1992-1998 - I'm only able to cite the 1992 year and not the 1998 year so doing it your way I thought would confuse people into thinking only the 1998 bit is mentioned and not the 1992 bit too - Does that make sense ?, Readers wouldn't know that both years are cited when on some years only one year is cited and not the other,

Of course you're more than welcome to edit it and change things I don't mind - the more help the better :), Thanks again for your feedback it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Now I see, I understand. Yes, it makes a lot of sense. In that case, the article is perfect as it is :) And thanks for telling me, and no problem. Kind regards ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Aww thanks so much! :), You're welcome, Happy editing, Thanks, Warm Regards –Davey2010^Talk 15:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

New to simple English Wiki

Hi, I am Chasia, and I am new to the Simple English Wiki. I was an editor of the English Wikipedia but I got blocked :( It's a long story. After I got blocked I went on a five month pause on wiki. Now I'm getting active again, I was active in the Spanish Wikipedia quite a lot before I found the Simple English one. I have almost 600 edits in the Spanish Wikipedia, about 15-20 here, and English, about 500+. Wow that is enough on my part there, would anyone give me some tips on here? Glady appreciate it! - Chasia/Adelaideslement8723 :) Adelaideslement8723 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chasia! Welcome back to the wiki world! I'm sorry to hear about your experience with English Wikipedia, but I'm sure you'll find Simple English Wikipedia to be a great place to contribute. Here are a few tips to help you get started:

1. **Use Simple Words and Sentences:** This wiki is designed for people learning English or those with different levels of reading comprehension. Keep your language as simple and straightforward as possible.
2. **Follow the Manual of Style:** We have specific guidelines for writing articles. This helps keep everything consistent and easy to read. You can find it here: [Simple English Wikipedia's Manual of Style](https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_English_Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=857041533).
3. **Ask for Help:** If you're unsure about anything, don't hesitate to ask. We have a friendly community here that's always ready to lend a hand.
4. **Start with Easy Tasks:** Look for articles marked as 'stubs' or those needing expansion. This is a good way to get accustomed to the style and gain confidence before tackling larger projects.
5. **Practice and Learn:** The more you edit, the better you'll get. Don't worry if your first few edits aren't perfect – we all learn as we go!

I hope these tips are helpful, and I look forward to seeing your contributions to the Simple English Wikipedia! 162.156.70.174 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's generated by AI :). BZPN (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Adelaideslement8723: Welcome. You might be interested in this list I maintain of ways that this wiki is different from others.

If you plan to create articles here, please get familiar with how to write in simple language. Pages that can help with this include:

• Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages
• Help:Translate English into Simple English
• Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:An English Wikipedian's guide

Since you were blocked on another wiki, you should know about the one-strike policy that we have here. It says, in part, "In most cases, a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked [here] unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia. They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user."

If you have any questions about any of this, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The state of things

Does the following make sense? "or knife carried by Sikhs and also it’s part of the the 5 k’s Traditionally, it was a full-sized sword but modern Sikhs have reduced the length to that of a dagger due to modern considerations based on societal and legal changes since then."

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKirpan&diff=9929402&oldid=9929391

This seems to be the state of things on the wikipedia that Jimbo Wales started. 2001:2020:309:EA48:3001:305:125F:7A15 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @2001:2020:309:EA48:3001:305:125F:7A15, No it didn't make much sense so I've improved it, Hope my edits are better?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done (and beyond the call of duty)

. 2001:2020:309:EA48:8548:8C38:3F:D6BC (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Bare minimum (in regard to Templates)

I have copied this template to En-wiki,
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Gum_catalogue
.--Are there any "votes", that say that a Delete discussion would be a waste of time (because the template will meet a bare minimum of 'helpfulness' or even usefullness, once anyone connects a language link, interwiki).--If the effort is not considered by anyone to be, a 'barely acceptable minimum', then that is not optimal.--Come time, i might actually use this Gum catalogue, to fix the articles about those mentioned astronomic thingies. If that is 'not enough', then i will have moved on to a new area of knowledge. 2001:2020:311:CB18:F4EA:18AE:F42F:139B (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Just my personal opinion and one that may not be shared by others here but I would say by a bare minimum this is serving a purpose as none of the articles are actually called GUM so readers may not realise going to the category would lead to them, and having the navbox there may give people the "oompfh" to create the redlinked ones anyway, There's 8 articles created there so it's imho serving a purpose, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A talk-page thread needs 'curtaining-off' or 'revert thread'

Not even medium-priority, but ... .
This non-sense Talk-page. Please 'curtain-off' the thread, or 'revert thread, et cetera'.--Thank you, in advance (while i fix various articles). 2001:2020:359:C5B6:10C3:7669:B5B0:9ADF (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for notyfing! Best regards, BZPN (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this project now obsolete?

Would it be just as good to simply input the regular Wikipedia articles into ChatGPT and ask to have them written in Basic English? Wes Makazian (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Look at the current requests for deletion, there are a few articles that are suspected to be generated by tools such as chatgpt. The last few I have seen weren't simple, and needed a lot of work. So, likely you still need humans to write a Wikipedia Eptalon (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think LLM will do it correctly - there may be too difficult words, because AI doesn't know the BE wordlist. LLM may confuse references, destroy formatting and remove important information. Generally, it's better to do it manually. BZPN (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Wes Makazian if you tell chatGPT to simplify an article, it will often miss critical details because it does not understand what is important, make mistakes, and all the above things.

The idea behind this project should be that we make articles that go above and beyond what is present on complex english wikipedia. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not, As noted above it'll create more hassle than it's worth, and in the long run will require manual checks so no imho LLM has no place on this project or any other project. –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In regard to your first edit here, one could say that you seem to be asking a loaded question.--My 'answer'-or-suggestion: I think we need a FAQ thingy - or maybe better, 'One-thousand-answers in a nutshell'.--If many users here, feel that i am not trying to be rude, then fine.--I am looking forward to your first edit (that does not discuss ChatGPT, or first edit that also does not make people suggest that you are using ChatGPT, for that question).--If many users here, feel that i am not accusing you of anything, then fine. 2001:2020:309:D648:ADC5:BB8C:6DAC:94C9 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me perhaps rephrase my answer above: Large Language Models are tools, and with a few iterations you can likely create an article that meets some of the requirements of this (or any) Wikipedia. You have to keep in mind though that these tools also have drawbacks, and that in the end it is a human editor who is responsible for the text. At the time I write this, these tools need a lot of input/rephrasing so the time saved is not that big. Eptalon (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I made a userspace draft on Elon Musk's grandfather

Here is the draft User:Immanuelle/Joshua Norman Haldeman is it well written and ready for mainspace or does it need more work? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Overall, the article is quite short, I would classify it as a stub. As for style: sentences should be short and understandable, e.g. the entire sentence He was arrested for protesting the Canadian government's entry into World War II, and then the technocrat movement was banned using the same laws used to ban fascist parties can be divide into several smaller ones and link key words. References should be placed after the punctuation mark, not before. It is also good to title all references or use the {{Cite}} template. Text formatting also needs to be refined. You can also read following pages:

• WP:MOS,
• WP:How to write Simple English pages.

I hope this helps :). BZPN (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Baby shower

We now have an article that is AI generated content Baby shower. What is our stance and can we also get a consensus on WP:AI and changing QD:A3 to include non-simple AI content? Thx fr33kman 13:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I was also thinking about QD, but it could be another G altogether. The stance should be simple. Why? Well, it's not just that the AI content is not simple. The point is also that AI-generated content do not ide specific information, but only too exaggerated and unreliable terms without specific context. There's actually no useful information there. I amMyeproposal is to create mplate that would mark articles generated using AI on the disctalke, but only if such an article has real and true value for the reader. BZPN (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have to have a template for such articles. I'll update WP:AI to include that AI generated content must be both comprehensive and simple or can be deleted under G13. It's still a proposed guideline atm. fr33kman 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Something like this to put on the talk page (from User:BZPN/AI notice):

BZPN (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And category "Articles with AI-generated content". BZPN (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, looks good. fr33kman 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really know what we gain by using AI to create articles, especially when a editor written article exists on enwiki. I think we should delete them on sight, rather than just tagging them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not about that. Such an article must meet all standards and policies anyway - if the user really wants to publish a real article, he will refine it after AI (all AI-generated articles that do not meet the standards may be deleted in QD mode). Marking an article that was created using AI will allow us, for example, to recognize the real skills of users and the quality of the content. This will also allow us to collect statistics on how AI influences the creation of content on Wikipedia. BZPN (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on recognizing the real skills of users? If they are able to refine an article correctly after AI then chances are we will not even be able to distinguish an AI article from a non-AI article, and then that really isn't an issue to us that is worth monitoring. If it looks AI-written still, then chances are it will still be eligible for deletion. --Ferien (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So what if an article contains elements created by AI, but is not entirely created by AI? Such an article will then not pass the RfD and will need to be corrected. It is not known who will correct it and when. Then you should leave the AI-notice template on the talk page. And if the user uses AI tools when writing an article, they can leave such a template on the discussion page, and then it will be known, for example, how often and who uses AI (statistics can be created). BZPN (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think cleanup templates/categories should be created on hypotheticals we do not have examples of. Articles are typically entirely created by AI, not created by AI, and if they are a mix, they are likely disruptive in other ways. If AI is just added in, it can simply be reverted. And how far down the rabbit hole do we go? Does me occasionally questioning ChatGPT for simpler synonyms to specific words in articles and using my judgement and BE 1500 count as partial generation by AI, when the end result is identical to me going and using a dictionary and comparing it to BE 1500? And if I don't disclose this, how will we know for certain that such articles are created by AI? I do not think AI-generated content is comparable to enwiki-translated articles, as it's harder to detect and also isn't necessarily copyrighted. --Ferien (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Baby shower, I also feel the promotion in the article hasn't been noticed. Pages that were created only to say good things about a person, company, item, group or service and which would need to be written again so that they can be encyclopedic. This description fits this article. They put in a promo about Cositas Chulas and then AI-generated content around it to support their ad. This is what I mean when I say if AI content is being used, it likely has other issues. --Ferien (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what "the real skills of editors" means. By allowing articles created by using LLMs, we are going to be creating substandard articles.

This will also allow us to collect statistics on how AI influences the creation of content on Wikipedia. So, we should use LLMs to gain more information on how LLMs can create articles? That's a circular argument if I ever saw one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

just for info: I replaced the article with s stub and kept it. No, not AI generated Eptalon (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks user:Eptalon.--I would appreciate it, if, say, an admin writes (here), something like, "I think this discussion, has ended for now. Please note: ' This version, was still not-so-good (in regard to AI)', before it was changed.--And this other earlier version, was bad (in regard to AI)".--My (main) point: When all of this is hopefully done, then i will likely link to those, say, two versions (from the relevant talk page)--Many users ('but also readers-only'), are not sure what part of an article sucks because of 'A.I. or LMM-or-LLM-whatever); With those two links, then a user can go back and check, and get an 'aha experience': Oh, so 'that (version) is what makes an article suck because' of A.I. or LMM-or-LLM-whatever.--Note: if anyone wants to complain because one feels that i have used a rude word here, then okay i guess; I have only tried to write simply and relatively quickly (without using all day, to find 'the smoothest words in the world').--If many people, sort-of-get-my-thread, then fine. 2001:2020:351:C573:550A:B330:4026:F053 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:550A:B330:4026:F053 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism? ("porn", "cowardice" added to at least one article)

At least one article (a bio), has both the word "porn" and "cowardice".--The English article has none (of those words).--Someone might want to take the problem to 'most relevant' talk page, or find other 'solutions'.--If my post was regarded as helpful, then fine.--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:319:AC4F:ADC5:CEB8:C39C:E608 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Looks like a user has done "Undo" or "Revert". 2001:2020:351:C2EF:204E:AD81:5960:E620 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

New problem, same article:
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahya_Sinwar&diff=9932644&oldid=9932383
,'Not soldiers, but terrorists - according to new user, that is edit-warring'.

I have no plans for edit-warring. However, one of you should consider making an edit (to set things straight or 'whatever').--I am not the article's 'janitor', so i expect to largely have a hands-off approach.--(Bag-of-popcorn, has already been procured.)--For now, the relevant talk-page has not been leading to any results. 2001:2020:331:9B64:90D7:363C:21FD:F6C2 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:AC4F:ADC5:CEB8:C39C:E608/ 2001:2020:331:9B64:28CF:BA55:332B:3AF0 (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The largest known manhunt in the U.S. this year?

This man.
Notable to have a bio on Simple-wiki? Is there enough SIGCOV about him?

He is being biographed in at least one (notable) newspaper in a Nordic country.--He is supposedly a valedictorian, from his high school. He has been arrested (this week) by police in regard to a murder case.--Please list (in this thread), significant coverage when it appears; Then i hope to start a stub.--The manhunt might have added to his 'significance or' wiki-notability.--No other wikipedia, has his article yet, according to my latest online search. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB

En-wiki redirects from his name, at time "20:22, 10 December 2024".--Just in case anyone was wondering about that. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the suspects name, for now, from an article, UnitedHealth_Group, diff,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UnitedHealth_Group&diff=9937289&oldid=9936580
. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper Aftenposten.no, does not mention his name, but quotes what the suspect shouted to the journalists, when he was escorted (into a building) by police officers. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Britain's largest broadcaster:
"[... Name of suspect] charged with murdering healthcare CEO in New York", is article title at BBC.com, today. Link,

www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly2zwqqr1ro
. 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Dagbladet.no, newspaper, title: "' Name of suspect: Friends are [in disbelief or] shocked'". Link,
borsen.dagbladet.no/nyheter/drapssiktet-venner-i-sjokk/82363170
. 2001:2020:351:C573:8CD8:222F:E048:3788 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're writing too much here ;). You really don't have to quote newspapers or describe your edits. You can always create an article, but I believe that Luigi Mangione is only temporarily popular in the daily news, and is not notable enough to write an article about him. This man's popularity will most likely decline in a few days, maybe weeks. I suggest writing about it on Wikinews for now. BZPN (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there (enough) SIGCOV about him, that might make it appear quite reasonable, to write (and keep) a stub or article about the suspect?--That was the first (?) question, more or less.

In regard to wikinews: if you or anyone spends (their own) free time with that, then i will not hold that against 'ye'. (To be clear - i am not requesting information about Wikinews. If you have information to share about Wikinews, then please consider mentioning it on your user page, if that okay by Simple-wiki's rules.) 2001:2020:351:C573:D2:5AFB:15EA:B6F (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB

Research 'about the suspect', is already underway, at Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) at Rutgers University.--Link, to a foreign broadcaster's article,
nrk.no/urix/amerikanere-hyller-mannen-som-er-siktet-for-drapet-pa-toppsjefen-brian-thompson-i-unitedhealthcare-1.17161246
.
I have now walked wikipedia-users thru some of the SIGCOV.--Now, anyone has a job to do, to show wiki-notability in an article about the suspect. 2001:2020:351:C573:8DBD:1906:B2BB:EDE5 (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: wiki-notability: "The creepy idolisation of Luigi Mangione", is a title by The Spectator (a media outlet).--The case about "Mangione's" wiki-notability is maybe not slam-dunk, yet. (A wiki-article would have to show that.) 2001:2020:351:C573:8DBD:1906:B2BB:EDE5 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB

Seems worse than category "QD ruled out?"

We have an article about 'a body part' collector. So, I checked en-wiki about the name of person being 'slandered et cetera', and s/he is mentioned 'with relatively few bells and whistles' at

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_County_Detention_Center

.--The user that created the article about 'the collector', has created 2-3 articles here, and i did read a bad 'review' about 'all the user's articles', at RfD/AfD on Simle-wiki.--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: The user that created the article about 'the collector', has created dozens of articles and/or redirects. There might not be a problem in that.--If this post is perceived as neutrally worded, then fine. 2001:2020:309:EA48:B4F4:7D88:B452:3824 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:EA48:DC06:E4AD:769A:AE4A

If I use the term 'uterus collector' (which is also used in the article), I get pagers of a Georgetown Law Journal (here), the Guardian (here) or BBC (here). Those are like the first 3-4 links. So the title is probably accurate, Wikipedia isn't censored... Eptalon (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Allowing users to remove flood flag from their own account

Hello everyone! I was wondering why users with the flood flag can’t remove it themselves once they finish their task, especially if they complete it earlier than expected (e.g. on plwiki it's possible). Waiting for the flag to expire can prevent users from engaging in other activities. It seems like a small change that could make things more efficient, reducing the need to bother admins to turn it off manually. Allowing users to remove the flag themselves would resolve this issue. What do you think? BZPN (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: That could be good. I think it would be a software change that we can't address here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I guess we will have to report it to Meta, but I don't know anything about it. BZPN (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

To implement such an adjustment in the software, a ticket needs to be submitted in Phabricator. If a consensus to make the change is reached, the developers will review it. --Esteban16 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Question

How do i make a Wikipedia project page with the add topic?

Miguel Inigo Mercadal3 (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't really do WikiProjects here. There's no specific issue with having a page in your userspace though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Long lists of related pages and categories

Is there a guideline regarding how many related pages are appropriate to be included in an article? Long lists of links, which I personally don't think are relevant enough, are being added to these articles, such as Autobiography, Catholic Church, and Zionism. Depextual (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

From w:MOS:SEEALSO:

Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of Mexican cuisine.

So, there's no set number, but I usually use a rule of three being my max. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"related pages" is a section that somehow tells about the sohrtcomings of a page: There is a page on a subject, and there are links to other pages (red or blue links in the sections of the article), but still there was now way to include the pages listed. Having too many of them likely also tells me that the page may lack focus. Eptalon (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I just removed most of them as they were unrelated and pov-pushing as well. Why was Adolf Hitler a related page under autobiography? Yeah, he wrote an autobiography, but every famous person wrote an autobiography. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; that's what I thought too. Depextual (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Elckerlijc spelling mistake

The page Elckerljic has a spelling mistake in the title. I am not allowed to move pages, so could someone move it to Elckerlijc for me? Special:MovePage/Elckerljic Tom9358 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This article has been moved. Thank you for the notice. Griff (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasonally-themed DYK hooks?

I just wondered if we could find new editors, if you try the next DYK update with seasonally-themed hooks?- Another question, if we decide to do that, do we have any that we could call 'seasonally-themed'? Eptalon (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The idea is good, but it would probably take a lot more work to prepare. Overall, I support the idea. BZPN (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support This seems like a fun idea. I'm in favor. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then. How many seasonally-themed DYKs can we get in the week that's left? Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it about how many articles? BZPN (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There are about six hooks on the Main Page now, so there should be six seasonal hooks, thus, six articles. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I Support that. BZPN (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Support What a cute idea! I love it! We could find some hooks about holidays like Christmas, Hanukkah, Yule, or about other things like Santa Claus (Simple is also targeted to children who might like some fun facts about Santa). If we don't make it in time, we can always have seasonal hooks in the future, like Chinese New Year in February. I have an exam tomorrow, so I don't really have time to find the hooks now, but just some ideas. Tomorrow evening I should have more time. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I extended A Christmas Carol quite a bit, with text from EnWP. Unfortunately, their way of citing is not how we usually do it. Might also look into simpilfying some of the material. As always, anyone's welcome to help Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Love the idea! it would look so cute! So I am in favor of this! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 08:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support A fine idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong support I love it :D There could be a lot of great ideas that can come from them, and there could be some kind of special template put aside for it (eg. Template:Did you know/STQ/1 (or something like that)). I’m pretty sure that an experienced editor can manually update the special ones, or somehow FehuBot could extend its duties to do so. I’m pretty sure I have some time the next two weeks, so any5ing specialised of a DYK I could put into User:Asteralee/STQ. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 02:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support seems like a fun idea, lets give it a shot.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that we have community consensus; who do we see to make this happen? The local sysops? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 17:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

the next possible update is on the 30th., so we need candidate hooks for that date. So go nominate hooks.. Eptalon (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Contributor 118,784 I don’t think that the sysops have anything to do with the seasonal hooks. What I am thinking is that an experienced editor could update the hooks or maybe FehuBot could be programmed to do it. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the process is semi-automatic, fehubot does the work, but people first group the hooks in a queue. Eptalon (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee yeah that makes sense. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 22:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

AWB ndash request

Hi, can somebody who knows how to use AWB replace " - " (hyphen) with " – " (en dash) in every page inside Category:Days of the year? The space before and after the hyphen/ndash is very important (otherwise it might mess up references and other correct hyphens)! Pages from January 1 to 16 were already changed manually by me, before I gave up (example of the changes I want you to make: Special:Diff/9963321). In case you wonder why I want to make this change, you can read here and here. Thank you! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

This can be a task for me tomorrow evening. I will do it within the 2017 wikitext editor, because there's a find and replace function in that. The pages all appear to be quite similar to handle, so I should be able to complete it fairly quickly. --Ferien (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

That'd be amazing! Thank you! I also wonder if a bot could be set up do something like that, but I am clueless when it comes to bots, got no idea how they work. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

┌──────┘
So, we talked about it in my talk page and we thought that it would be so much better to replace " - " (remember both spaces) with " – ", so that people with certain fonts can clearly see the difference. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

RedWarn

Hi! I have recently expanded my anti-vandalism activities from the English Wikipedia to this wiki. I was able to get Twinkle, but could someone guide me on how to get RedWarn? Randomdude121 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a script for it on EnWiki that you can put on your global.js ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 14:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

You're correct about the presence of a script, but I'm just having trouble getting that on this wiki. Randomdude121 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What does it say when you try to put it here or does it bring up an error? ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 15:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The script installer there imports User:RedWarn/.js, which is a problem on this wiki because User:RedWarn is not even registered here. Randomdude121 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's only available on enwiki. Ternera (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think so too, we only use Twinkle here. ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 15:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, please ping me if there's a way possibly in the future. Randomdude121 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 16:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, there was a chat at W:Wikipedia talk:Ultraviolet/2020/July about it being global. I can ask one of the Devs about it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Randomdude121, Ternera, and Lee Vilenski: There is a user-created .js page for RedWarn now. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 03:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Simplewiki. I want to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a fantastic 2025! Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to join in and also wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a wonderful 2025! May it be a joyful and productive year for all of us. BZPN (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 07:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Some kind of vandalism that needs to be removed

I found nine pages that include both "nirvana" and "happy tree friends" in their text. I'm pretty sure this is all vandalism and needs to be removed, but I don't know exactly which edits to revert, as vandalism may be added in several edits. I think the user who did this is the same one who was vandalizing VeggieTales. I would appreciate it if someone could review these pages and help to remove the vandalism. Depextual (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - Investigation complete. That was a good catch, please let us know if you find any other concerning edits. Griff (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales Thank you! The only problem I see remaining is on Universal Studios#Movies. Depextual (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch, resolved. Griff (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox next/prev seasons not linking

Hi, I updated Module:Infobox television season name because Waterloo Road series articles were showing as "Waterloo Road series 1", "Waterloo Road series 2" etc etc instead of just "Series 1", "Series 2" (these were linked)

However this update as now resulted in previous and next TV series/seasons not linking (ie for The Simpsons (season 3) - The Simpsons (season 2) and The Simpsons (season 1) are not linked and just as unlinked bold text),

I've not updated the other modules connected to Template:Infobox television season but I'm assuming outdated modules aren't the reason?, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 17:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there isn't something a bit screwy with the en version as well. Looking at the examples at en:Module:Infobox television season name/doc, they don't actually link to the pages they say they do. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the examples there are supposed to be like that as it's saying for example under "getNextSeasonArticle" that linking "Lost (season 3)" will give you Lost (season 4) using the getNextSeasonArticle jargon, It makes sense in my head but I can't explain it on paper, I think they're correct anyway,

This seems to be a growing problem on here where templates are word for word the same as enwiki but they still don't work, {{jctbtm}} was one example, Invoking templates appears to be another problem here, I'll have a play about and see what I can achieve which I suspect wont be very much, thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I figured it out; Articles need to have the following parameters in the infobox for seasons to show,

Example:

| next_season = [[Family Guy (season 4)|Season 4]]

| prev_season = [[Family Guy (season 2)|Season 2]]

Without this the infoboxes don't show anything, Anyway I've reverted my updates as we can't expect editors who copypaste articles from enwiki to know that these parameters are needed, We already have a big red notice on the {{shortdesc}} template telling people tor remove it but people still add the template and ignored the notice anyway, Imho it creates more problems than what it's worth, No objections to reversion providing there's an easy fix for this, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Davey, is there any need for community or technical discussion on this issue? Just looking to see if I need to do anything here. Griff (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice to administrators and patrollers

On no-wiki we have dealth with a vandal for months. The vandal’s account has been globally banned, and we ban locally every new IP (using proxies) the vandal uses. The posts are nonsene about Norwegian stew (not stew actually, but en:Lobscouse) which the vandal sometimes refer to as God’s stew. There are mainly myself and two other no-wiki sysops that have banned the IPs, which have made the vandal target us with harassment at other wikis as well (nn-wiki, sv-wiki, da-wiki, en-wiki and here at simple-wiki).

Among other things the vandal claims to be me, the vandal claims I am a vandal, claims that I pay people to vandalize, claims that I pretend to be sysop at no-wiki (obviously doesn’t understand that CA info can’t be faked…), etc. Vandal has also added the topicon template {{Administrator}} and in writings claimed to be admin on own IP user pages here at simple-wiki.

I will not be surprised if the vandal adds a comment to this post, denying it and make new claims about me instead. That has happened on my talk page (check history for deleted content). The last three IPs (proxies) used are:

• 88.93.84.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (22 Dec., confirmed as open proxy)
• 88.93.165.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (yesterday)
• 88.93.243.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (today)

See also these two WP:VIP posts: Special:Diff/9828686 and Special:Diff/9900061, and this WP:AN post. In the latter, the user names of the other two no-wiki sysops are mentioned. They mainly deal with the vandal at no-wiki and nn-wiki, while the vandal hates me more, because I chase the vandalism cross-wiki.

Lately, the vandal (with a new proxy address) has made obstructive edits here on simple-wiki as soon as the IP gets banned at no-wiki. Modus is as follows: makes an insignificant edit (typically adds a space) to check if IP is globally banned yet, then adds "#NorwegianStew" in the beginning of random articles. Goes into an edit war when vandalism is reverted. When warned on talk page, the vandal answers in a rude manner. Some of the change summaries are harassment, either in English or Norwegian.

My advise is to avoid giving this vandal warnings, there’s simply no point having a dialogue with a cross-wiki LTA vandal like this. Just keep reverting until IP is globally banned. (Global ban requests can be made at m:Steward requests/Global.) Sysops can ofc ban locally.

On no-wiki, I hide every edit that’s made, so he can’t see his actions in the page history either.

I know of WP:AN, but couldn’t find any similar for patrollers, that’s why I made this post at the "Village pump", hoping that more patrollers see it than at WP:AN. Best regards, and happy holidays from no-wiki sysop, 1000mm (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation): @1000mm, thank you for this notice! This information is very useful in fighting this vandal. Merry Christmas! BZPN (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this notice, I'm sure other New Changes Patrollers will find this as helpful as I have, since identification is an important half the battle against them :).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Just keep reverting until IP is globally banned – Instead of constantly reverting, it’s better to wait and revert *after* the IP gets globally blocked. It's way more effective and saves effort. Speaking from almost 6 years as being a global rollbacker. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@XXBlackburnXx, not when IP introduces vulgarisms and other offensive content in articles. Such things are visible to all readers, so you should revert them immediately instead of waiting a few or a dozen minutes (during this time, the page can be viewed by up to several dozen readers in the case of popular topics). BZPN (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about this article

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmelo_Borg_Pisani It seems to be written in British English, I have fixed some of the words but I don't know if any type of English is allowed? Is British English the same as regular English? Please let me know if you folks have an answer. Thank you! - J.J. Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think, likely any type of English isa allowed. We want to create an encyclopedia, and to add interesting ingformation .With time, more than one person will have edited the artilcle, so it would be nice to have only one form of a word... Eptalon (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jayden Johnson 2314 Unrelated question but why do you have two accounts ?, Are you aware of WP:SOCK?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am highly aware @Davey2010...

And @Eptalon thanks! :) Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jayden Johnson 2314....... so why do you have two accounts ?.... You've edited with your other one 30 minutes ago so it's not privacy related.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010 I put a reason why on your talk page ;) Jayden Johnson 2314 (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

As I've said in my reply you need to stick to one account, If I see you editing with both accounts I'll just report you for socking and you'll be blocked on both accounts which I don't really want to do because judging by your edits on your main account you're a productive editor, Thank you for at least being honest about why but yeah unfortunately your reason isn't a valid one as we have password reset systems and other systems that can get your account back, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I have learned a lot ever since the incident over at the regular English Wiki... I made a terrible mistake... And I have learned a lot to not make the same mistake ever again, of course I was young and I didn't know any better, but now I have learned over the course of time (like months in time)... Unfortunately I am still blocked at the regular English Wiki, and I don't want to end up the same fate here too... Thank you for listening to my ramble there (lol) XD

Anyways... Happy Editing, and have a great rest of your night! ✿༺ 𝒜𝒹𝑒𝓁𝒶𝒾𝒹𝑒 ༻✿🆃🅰🅻🅺 💌 00:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with two accounts. It not socking. It is only against the rules if you use them to add votes in elections, consensus, RfDs and the like. I have two accounts myself. Official statement by checkuser fr33kman 23:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the time only the second acc out gets blocked in a first incident. It becomes a problem when the second accounts used to cheat. fr33kman 23:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jayden Johnson 2314, @Davey2010: I don't know what caused the conversation about multitple accounts, but in some cases multiple accounts are acceptable. You can look at WP:SOCK to see when they can be allowed. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Auntof6, Please see this, Multiple accounts are acceptable but not for a user who had created 10 accounts on enwiki which all got cu-blocked. I'll be honest I was going to let this slide until their comment above about them "learning a lot". Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 01:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To address your issue, British English, American English, Canadian English, Irish English, etc. etc. are considered national varieties of English and per WP:ENGVAR they are all treated as equally correct and valid here. The first major contributor chooses which variety of English to use. The rule is 1) If it is about something British, use British English, etc. 2) Use just one for the whole article with no switching. We use the simplified versions of all of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi. I have been trying to find a page that is basically the equivalent of "Wikipedia:Requested moves" on EN wiki but to no avail. Is this the place where we submit such requests especially since some pages cannot be moved by regular users and need the intervention of an administrator or page mover? For instance, I was trying to move Akbar Rafsanjani to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani per WP:COMMONNAME and for consistency with the article on EN wiki but it has become apparent to me that I cannot make the move myself. Would be glad if someone could provide some guidance. Keivan.f (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. There is no such page on simplewiki - all requests and questions should be directed here or to AN (if they require administrator intervention). You couldn't move the page because the target page already existed in the form of a redirect (Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani). I moved its content manually. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: Please don't move pages manually because we lose the edit history. Thanks.

I will revert the original page and redo the move to preserve the history. -- Auntof6 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Best regards, BZPN (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

what BZPN said. You'll find quite a few active noticeboards on enwiki don't exist here, simply because there is little need for a dedicated noticeboard for something that doesn't happen a lot. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's totally understandable. Thanks to both of you for your help and inputs. Keivan.f (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You could also ask an experienced edit or admin to do the move if it's possible. fr33kman 00:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Nmed template proposal

Hello. I noticed that we don’t have a template for articles that might include unverified medical/pseudomedical information, and I think it could be useful to introduce one. It could serve as a clear warning against pseudomedical knowledge, so that the reader does not confuse it with real medicine. Here’s an example of how it could look:

I'm looking forward to your feedback :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't totally work: it just seems to tell readers not to trust that article, which then raises the question of why the article exists (unless it were added to all medical articles). It could be better if the notice asked for help improving the article like other cleanup templates. Depextual (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Depextual: such a template can prevent possible confusion with medicine in articles about pseudomedical sciences. The point is not to inform that the article needs improvement - it is to inform that the data contained in it may not be consistent with current medical knowledge. An example of an article in which such a template could be placed could be Bananaphobia (of course, if it was written properly, in accordance with the policies) or Homeopathy (pseudomedicine). BZPN (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. such a template could be placed in articles such as those mentioned in List of phobias#Funny and fictional phobias (if they existed), so that they would not be confused with real diseases. BZPN (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

May I perhaps just remind you: In Wikipedia, almost any user can change almost any article. While it might be (and will be the case gicen enough revisions) that the information is scientifixcally accurate, this need not be the case, and likely isn't. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer, just to cite two of the disclamers Eptalon (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon: I'm not talking about mentioning medical risk. The point is to place this template in articles about topics that are widely recognized scientifically as pseudomedical, and not to warn about unverified information. As I mentioned earlier, for example, the article Homeopathy is about scientifically diagnosed alternative medicine (pseudomedicine), so it just needs to be clearly stated. BZPN (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

so a 'pseudoscience disclaimer'. Likely well known example is homeopathy. Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant :).

It's a pseudomedical disclaimer. BZPN (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks good. I agree to its adoption. Steven1991 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a disclaimer like this is needed. On the whole, we should be representing what is shown in reliable sources, to a point where this template should not be needed. If there are alternative viewpoints not presented in reliable sources, then those should be removed. I think the way Homeopathy is written is good, in terms of presenting scientific evidence that it's likely a placebo effect behind it. Bananaphobia shouldn't exist as an article and should just be deleted. So I also don't see a need at this stage. --Ferien2 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include additional information that the article concerns pseudomedicine. This is just additional information for the reader, which improves orientation in the topic and clearly shows that the topic is contrary to science. BZPN (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we find a formulation that doesn't include 'pseudo-'? Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we can use "alternative medicine" instead of "pseudomedicine", but those are synonims. BZPN (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The word “alternative medicine” also sounds more encyclopaedic, making it the better one on this site. Steven1991 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. therefore, the template could be called {{Alt-med notice}} BZPN (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN: Alternative medicine and pseudomedicine are not the same. Medicine from cultures other than the one in which one lives can be considered alternative without being considered pseudo. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6, I'm a bit confused... Our article about alternative medicine on plwiki states that the terms "alternative medicine" and "pseudomedicine" are synonyms. BZPN (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Link: pl:Medycyna niekonwencjonalna. BZPN (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

And, for example, we have such a template in plwiki (you can see it, for example, on pl:Homeopatia), and it works quite well. BZPN (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If I translate that disclaimer, it reads: 'This article describes theories, methods or activities that are inconsistent/incompatible with modern medical knowledge." Eptalon (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I included the same thing in my template, but in a more detailed version. BZPN (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We have this page, so I don't really see why we would need this template. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Contributor 118,784: this template is not related to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer - it would simply serve as additional information in articles about alternative medicine, and not as a warning about the quality of medical content. The idea is to prevent possible confusion between articles about alternative medicine and articles about actual medicine among readers, e.g. those who have a poor understanding of English (such a template will attract their attention + it is noted that the article describes a non-scientific topic). BZPN (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's my bad -- I didn't understand what you meant. In this case, I will Support this and remove my weak support. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 14:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

<-I'm not sure there was consensus for this (admins, feel free to confirm) but it appears the template was implemented. I will say that I disagree with this template for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia does not determine what is pseudo-science, we simply present what others have discovered.
• Editors/community would have to determine what is "pseudo" or alternative medicine versus proven medicine, and most of us are not medical doctors. By us beginning to label certain treatments as "pseudo" and others not, we are now acting in that role.
• Wikipedia's role is not to provide medical advice. Should we put a disclaimer on Hydroxychloroquine in the COVID-19 article warning readers that there is not scientific proof it works?

If the community decides to keep this template, I would ask that a member of the community update the /doc page for it with this discussion for future reference. Griff (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So, do you think we should question the existence of the Category:Alternative medicine at all, because it is not our job to judge whether it is real medicine? This is quite an absurd - all information about whether the method is alternative or real should be based on scientific sources that clearly state that the described method is non-medical (as in the example of homoeopathy - it is widely and medically recognized as alternative medicine by scientific publications). . So, the judgement belongs to scientific sources, not to the community - if reliable and well-known scientific sources write that Homeopathy is alternative medicine, then it is so, and the community should not judge it. To finally explain it to you: the template is a note that prevents the reader from confusing a medical practice with an alternative one, widely recognized on the basis of scientific sources. As for "Wikipedia's role is not to provide medical advice", I have already referred to it above. BZPN (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There are many researches with different results all over the internet. Saying something is inconsistent needs a lot more expertise than an average editor has. I think we ought to word the article in a way that the section or specific represents the source instead of tagging page as a whole. Also, not everything in a page might be inconsistent, it might have some parts which are consistent and some that are not, which makes having the tag even more confusing. I feel like this goes way beyond what normal users are capable of sorting and might just cause lot more confusion than it solves. I Oppose this tag. BRP ^ever 11:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you think so, please try to prove that Homeopathy is real medicine based on serious scientific sources. The fact that research gives different results all over the Internet does not mean that they are true and reliable. Scientific publications clearly state what is pseudomedicine, and you should stick to it. In such a case, please also refer to the category I mentioned earlier - do you think it should be questioned in some way? As for the tag, you can always change it, e.g. "This article describes" to "This article may contain", it is not a big problem. BZPN (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I will also add that topics such as Quantum healing or Somatics are, without any doubt, non-medical (alternative medicine), and this is widely recognized scientifically. BZPN (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN Reading the page Quantum healing itself gives an idea of what it is. We don't need a tag with our verification to point that out. BRP ^ever 15:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What about the other issues I mentioned above? And one more thing: simplewiki is an encyclopedia, serving mainly as a base for learning English for students and people who want to learn the language. They may not fully understand the content or understand something incorrectly, and such a template attracts attention from the very beginning and encourages people to read it. This is to make Wikipedia easier for readers to use. BZPN (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we should try to be more clear with our language. We are still an encyclopedia and I am not in favor of permanent notices and tags on pages. BRP ^ever 15:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a medical doctor and I guess I have an opinion. I don't think we should have a template like this. While I believe that medical pseudoscience is dangerous on this wiki I have to be an unbiased editor. Wikipedia exists to provide a place where the planet' s knowledge can be found and read. It is not a place to get advice. Articles that provide information such as how to take a treatment are setting out advice: even if it may be the advice of most doctors. This is opinion and not NPOV knowledge. If we were to start tagging articles like this we're saying that you can't essentially trust the article. We already have the medical disclaimer and that has to be enough. If we were going to tag medical articles then we should tag none of them or all of them and simply use the tag to point to the disclaimer. Ultimately it is incumbent on the reader to confirm the varacity of the articles they read. Medical articles are no different. If we tag an article with the proposed tag we are taking a risk we shouldn't do. fr33kman 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I also think the medical disclaimer is enough: No matter what the disease or treatment is, in Wikipedia you can perhaps find information on the disease or condition. Since anyone can change pretty much any article, you don't have a guarantee that what is written is true or accurate. Even then: it might not apply in your case. A medical doctor goes through a long education/training (where I live: about 10 years for a specialist, perhaps 7-8 years for a generalist). So, to say that I have a description online somewhere, and based on that, they say in most cases, this condition is treated with that treatment, so I also do that treatment, without seeing a medical professional, is simply foolish. As I have seen, in most cases, there are a few different options how to treat something; a medical professional will know these, and point out the good and bad points of each treatment. So our medical disclaimer should be enough. Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How do i be a Bureaucrat?

What are the tips to be a Bureaucrat? Karuja (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please read WP:A and WP:CRAT. Thank you. BZPN (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. Bureaucrats are very experienced editors. In this wikipedia, only administrators can become bureaucrats. So, in very short terms:

• Make many useful changes, and become aware that this Wikipedia is different from the English Wikipedia in many ways. Also take part in discussions.
• Create, fix or extend articles that interest you.
• Help fight vandalism, get the autopatroller or rollback flags.
• Once you are visible and well-known enough, try to get the adminship flag.
• After you have been an admin for some time, you can apply for bureaucrat.

Eptalon (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@BZPN@Eptalon User globally locked Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's right, but why are you telling us that? BZPN (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

just for your knowledge and for other's reading this? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how this affects the question itself, which was asked in this thread, but okay... Best regards, BZPN (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

okay... Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Categorised redirects

Hello. Looking at Category:Peppa Pig characters, most of the content are redirect pages (and in my opinion, the non-redirects should be moved to Category:Peppa Pig. However, when the category loses the redirects, it becomes underpopulated. Should they be accepted? ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 06:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee: Please explain: why would the redirects be lost? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:RCAT (and especially WP:SUBTOPICCAT), these redirects should be categorized. Personally, however, I am against categorizing redirects with virtually no value. BZPN (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is whether or not having less than three articles means we should delete a category, if it's otherwise made up of redirects. How RCAT interacts with WP:CAT#Is there a need for the new category? I suppose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asteralee, articles should always be categorised (or re-categorised) appropriately, even if this will result in under-populated categories.

@BZPN: Are you saying that redirects should not be categorised, or only that redirects of "no value" should not be categorised?

I recommend that we add a note in WP:CAT after the phrase "There should be a minimum of three articles"[1] that says the following: For purposes of determining whether a new category should be created or an existing empty category deleted, redirects are not counted as articles. Griff (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales: I only meant redirects without much value. Those included in the above-mentioned category (Category:Peppa Pig characters) are a good example - they all lead to an already very poor section of the same article, so they basically only artificially fill the category. There are, of course, redirects that need to be categorized, and I don't mind categorizing redirects (if they have any value). Besides, I support your recommendation. BZPN (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales I also support your suggestion. ⯎ Asteralee ⯎ 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary articles

Hi! Do we have a policy anywhere on articles we have that we have pages for, but are just soft redirects to Wiktionary? I've found 13 such pages, for example; Vindicate, Format and Global. Should we have an article for these if we don't actually do any explaining internally? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Similarly anything tagged with {{dicdef}} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: What kind of policy are you wondering about? Whether we should have the pages? Whether they can/should be turned into articles? Something else? -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. Whether or not we should have an article that is simply a template. Obviously if these were turned into an article, that would be fine, but I'm a bit unsure we should retain very short items such as these.

On other projects we'd usually either redirect these terms, or not create the article. I wasn't sure if there was a suitable reason for them.

It's not a problem either way, but I ran into them and thought it was a bit weird. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Lee, I also think that any articles that link to these stubby articles should be changed to soft redirects interwiki links to Wiktionary. If no one objects in the next couple of days, maybe we can team up and take care of it? Griff (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. The pages Lee mentioned ARE soft redirects to Wiktionary. At some point Auntof6 was claiming that articles should not have links to Wiktionary. What are the other choices if a non-simple term is needed, and the subject isn't substantial enough for an article? 174.160.82.127 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I had the right term in my head, it just didn't make it to my fingers. While I respect Auntof6's opinion, I have reviewed ST archives, and though Auntof6 has made their personal preference known, it does not appear that that position was ever supported by other community members. Per MOS:IWL (enWP), interwiki linking to complicated wiktionary terms is acceptable, and if our English cousins are okay with it, I think we should be even more supportive of it. Griff (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think a link to the Wiktionary in the article is more suitable than us having a soft redirected article in mainspace. I'm not sure I've seen a thing about not linking to Wiktionary, to me it's the same as any other {{ill}} link, but happy if there's been any discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: The problem with having the Wiktionary links in articles, instead of in a separate soft-redirected page, is that those links aren't likely to get replaced if we ever have an article written on the subject. I've found Wiktionary links in articles where we actually had an article that could be used instead, but I found them while I was doing something else: I wasn't looking specifically for them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Griffinofwales: Which pages are you referring to when you say "stubby articles"? Do you mean the pages in article space that are soft redirects to Wiktionary? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Griff (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm being accused of copyviolation, is that true?

(I doubt whether I should ask this question here or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I'm happy to move it to there)

At my ongoing unblock request at the English Wikipedia I'm being accused of copyviolation here (at Simple Wikipedia). Because its a serious accusation I would like to raise the issue here. If it is copyright violation it is a policy violation and it should be removed and I would like to rewrite it.

I start this topic because 1) its about simple Wikipedia, 2) I would like to improve me edits/works if they are non constructive, 3) I would like to explain here what I did and 4) I didn't start it at the English wikipedia becaue I can't start a topic there.

• Valère Depoorter is "way too close paraphrasing of the source" of this source. (no specific sentences indicated)

The prose from Nieuwsblad van het Noorden after Google Translate translation; next to the article I wrote:

“Depoorter was best known in Avelgem for his 30-year political career,” says mayor Lut Deseyn. “When he first ran in 1964, he became alderman in a coalition with the then liberal mayor André Wymeersch.” “In the 1970 elections, Valère had to settle for a role in the opposition, but in 1976 he served as first alderman for the first 3 years under leader Roger Tack, after which Valère became mayor in 1980. He held this office until 1994. Valère Depoorter was loved by everyone because he governed his municipality like a true ‘father of the mayor’ without making any distinction between his residents.” — Joyce Mesdag (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden) (translated by Google Translate)

Valère Depoorter (c. 1930 – 9 December 2024) was a Belgian politician. His political career lasted 30 years and was for 14 years mayor of Avelgem from 1980 to 1994. Depoorter started his political career in Avelgem in 1964. He was a member of Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams (CD&V). He became municipal officer (in Belgium called "schepen") in a coalition with the liberal mayor André Wymeersch. After the 1970 elections, he ended up in the opposition. In 1976 he was for three years the first alderman under Roger Tack. Depoorter became mayor of Avelgem in 1980. He retired in 1994 and was succeeded by Lieven Vantieghem. Depoorter is praised that during his time he was mayor he made no "distinction between the residents" and that he was was "loved by everyone". Depoorter died on 9 December 2024, at the age of 94 years old.

I used four articles that are stating more ore less the same content. In the Wikipedia article I list the factual information from the four articles. Note that the for articles are short with a lot of factual information. If you start writing a Wikipedia article in a chronological sequence with the factual information from these articles, it is logical that the listing of the data is consistent and the time sequence is the same. But if the content is the same, it is not yet copyrightviolation.

• Piet Zwaanswijk with "Copyvio/close paraphrasing"

It's about one specific sentense in the article. In the article I translated a part of a sentence literally on purpose from what was written; because he is according to that article regarded like that. After rereading I placed de two subjective statements between "" to make that even more clear.

"Piet Zwaanswijk was one of the most respected post-war visual artists of Haarlem. His work had a profound influence on the local art scene" — Wessel van Opstal (haarlem105.nl) (translated by Google Translate)

Zwaanswijk is regarded as "one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem" and his work had a "profound influence on the local art scene" After rereading I added two times "" Zwaanswijk is regarded as "one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem" and his work had a "profound influence on the local art scene"

(Side note: This secion is absolutly not meant for a discussion about my block request. But what in my unblock request, several people have problems with my English prose writing here at Simple Wiki (sorry I'm not native) or article notabilty. Please come to me and let me know as I'm happy to work on it.)

Thanks for your time, SportsOlympic (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe en:WP:LIMITED applies to the Valère Depoorter example. For Piet Zwaanswijk, I agree that the original lack of quotations was a problem, not simply from the copyvio angle, but because it was a statement of the form "regarded as... the most <something>", which generally requires some form of attribution per en:MOS:QUOTEPOV, and that editors need to be careful to not express that statement in "Wikipedia's own voice". Chenzw  Talk  15:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

SportsOlympic, thanks for reaching out. I know it is a lot of work to create all these articles. In my opinion, to avoid influencing the discussion of your unban request at enWP, I believe it would be best if we review examples together with other content editors at a later time and decide how improvements can be made. That being said, although "x is regarded as ..." with a citation is actually somewhat common on Wikipedia articles, it is not supported by MOS. Griff (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2025!

May 2025 bring us a year of useful contributions! Woohoo! Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 10:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Lets hope.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's true. LOL Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 13:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Emailing users information page

I have found Wikipedia:Emailing users. I believe it needs to be simplified as it's fairly complex and was copied from English Wikipedia. 2601:644:907E:A70:39FB:FF96:8D13:FB6D (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will be happy to simplify it myself. However, we can just as easily replace the page with a soft redirect to enwiki, although on the other hand, if we already have it, we can leave it. BZPN (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It would probably be better to have a simplified version. 2601:644:907E:A70:39FB:FF96:8D13:FB6D (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Support We need a simplified version. This is simplewiki after all. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 11:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS spell 9

Hi, does the decimals apply to single digit numbers that are written as words or not? (Example: three is written as a word but is 3.5 written as a word or a number?)

Link: w:MOS:SPELL09

2001:569:7C59:1E00:4CE5:6F70:8BE6:C11E (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Depends a bit on the context, but generally decimals are written as numbers. You might say "three-and-a-half years" or similar, but generally it's 3.5. SPELL09 you link to above refers to "integers", which are whole numbers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay thanks! 2001:569:7C59:1E00:4CE5:6F70:8BE6:C11E (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for undelete of a Page

Hi i want to request undeletion of page Ardi Pulaj, his notability is confirmed in Albanian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia ( after a discussion) with related arguments.Thank you.81.26.204.11 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)81.26.204.11 (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please submit a request on WP:DRV. By the way, the notability of a person must be proven here, on simplewiki, and the existence of an article in other language versions does not change much. BZPN (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, if will be undeleted will be proven with references here too his notability, anway i will put request to realted page. 81.26.204.11 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pages and Author

Do author of a Wikipedia page have more authority over the page the created like making edits that dont get reverted Ralphaelwiki (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ralphaelwiki: No. Once a page is created, anyone can edit it. Changes can be reverted for valid reasons no matter who made them. I hope that answers your question. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You may be considered the original author of a page that you create, however, the article enters the public domain when it's created, so everyone is the author in a sense. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is – as long as there aren't any regional ties – you get to choose the date format and the English variant. Please note that the one who gets to choose is the first main contributor. The first main contributor is usually the author (User:A), but if the User:A only started a short stub and said stub gets expanded by User:B, the one who gets to choose is User:B. This is to prevent pointless change-wars over formats. You can also read this if you want to know more. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Remember also that the variant you chose might still be changed if there is consensus on the talk page. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Archives

Hi all, we had a discussion here but it got archived, so just putting up a reminder. Please do not manually archive the following pages as it is set to be autoarchived by SpBot. I am trying to see if it is working perfectly and/or trying to correct errors if they appear. In the long run, this is meant to make the archival easier and uniform. Pages include:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
• Wikipedia:Proposed good articles
• Wikipedia:Deletion review
• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller

Thanks,-- BRP ^ever 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed good articles

Hi, we have a few proposals that can be considered for closure at this point. If anyone is free, help there would be much appreciated.-- BRP ^ever 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to close the GANs, but as I've taken part in all of them, I'd want explicit consensus to be happy to do so. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I give my Support for you to close them. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 20:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Oldrfd and Template:Oldrfdfull

Hi, Quick question; do we really need {{Oldrfd}}?,

• {{Oldrfd}} tells the reader the RFD was closed as keep/delete but doesn't include the nomination date or a link to the discussion
• {{Oldrfdfull}} (if filled out correctly) tells the reader the RFD was closed as keep/delete, the date it was nominated and a link to the discussion

If Oldrfdfull isn't filled out correctly it shows the exact same message as Oldrfd,

Doesn't make sense why we have 2 RFD talkpage templates but thought I'd ask before sending to RFD, I guess this could be redirected too, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right. Indeed, it seems that the Oldrfd template is unnecessary. I Support the redirect to Oldrfdfull. BZPN (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I guess there's no need to send Oldrfd to a separate RfD - we can discuss it here, because it's probably not a controversial issue. BZPN (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we just deprecate oldrfdfull and use the code from oldrfdfull on oldrfd? It won't make a technical difference. If we do that, we should just merge the /doc pages to show a simple way to use the template and the more "complicated" way. Griff (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Griffinofwales, That's actually a really great idea, I would certainly Support deprecating oldrfdfull and using the oldrfdfull for Oldrfd, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any template deprecation, that will need a lot of cleanup work. I'd just redirect oldrfd to oldrfdfull and call it a day, or do it the otherway around by moving it to oldrfd, it doesn't really matter too much, so long as we have one template in the end with the full functionality with the other being a redirect. --Ferien (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, redirecting the one with less functionality to the other is the solution. No need for cleanup Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a very long-term project of mine is to have RfD discussions linked to on all talk pages of articles kept at RfD, by prefilling all appropriate values. But there is still a long way to go with that project and still a very long way until I intend to finish fixing it! (And this is unrelated to moving oldrfd to oldrfdfull directly) I've just gone back and noticed that {{oldrfd}} actually contains different values to {{oldrfdfull}}, ie oldrfd doesn't need a name parameter to be labelled as such, whereas oldrfdfull does, and oldrfd links to the discussion everytime but in a much easier way. Only 46 transclusions for the old one and these would need to be adjusted. I guess oldrfd can be deprecated but also oldrfdfull does contain some unnecessary information. I can see why both exist, oldrfdfull is the better template but is not always used properly linking to the discussion, hence my project. And I don't think anyone is still actively using oldrfd now, it's just a matter of using oldrfdfull properly. So still leaning towards, but deprecating/redirecting it would require cleanup work that will ultimately make little to no difference to the talk page and only provides the benefit of consistency. --Ferien (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ferien, So sorry to ping you again, Just wanted to ask how does oldrfd link to the discussions ?, the only link they appear to contain is Wikipedia:Deletion policy,

Re your little project; I've been longing for the day where scripted RFD closures are a thing here (same as enwiki) but I know that would never happen given the consensus that admins only should close them but it would be a dream if it could exist nonetheless :), –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Davey2010, yep never mind, of course it can't as it doesn't have the year to get a link! Struck that, thanks. There is actually a script/gadget for RfD closures that I think only admins can access (under Administration in Gadgets), I'm not sure whether talkpages are a part of it but it hasn't been working for years, or it works in a certain skin or something like that, can't recall completely. --Ferien (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Haha no worries, I know there is just a shame it can't be used by us peasants :P although saying that it sounds like I'm not missing much after all if it's working and not working :) –Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks all for commenting, I've redirected Template:Oldrfd to Template:Oldrfdfull per consensus above, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)