Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 167

A kind of "Foreign relation", yes or no?

Foreign relation.--What if Country T changes its laws, so that goods (or products) from the U.S. , do not have to (customs-tax or) customs duty, when those products come to Country T, so that the products can be sold somewhere in Country T?--Can that maybe be mentioned in "Foreign relations" section, of wiki-article? Does it belong in another kind of section? In my opinion (or feeling), i do not think it belongs in Economy (section).--Link (not English),

vg.no/nyheter/i/25e8eG/taiwan-fjerner-toll-paa-amerikanske-varer
. 2001:2020:C325:AB23:F9E8:7D95:F380:72A6 (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Dealing with SPAM

Hi User:National_School_of_Education's user page is clearly advertising. I was going to nominate it for speedy deletion as such, but I couldn't figure out how to do it and apparently you guys don't have a page explaining the criteria. Or at least I couldn't find one. So can someone please delete their page? Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 The criteria are here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion. For this page it would be {{QD|G11}}. 108.81.226.61 (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Reinstate Rooster on Simple Wikipedia

I want to reinstate this article in Simple English Wikipedia. Can someone help me in solving this problem here now? 117.231.194.183 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for that. If necessary, you can simply expand the Chicken article. BZPN (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That article talks about chickens normally without any genders and i want someone to expand the article as an article about male chickens now here immediately off. 120.56.99.0 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with BZPN. We don't need gender-specific articles about animals. How much is there to say about roosters that doesn't apply to chickens in general? -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This much is there. See this article now about gender specific animals. All this: https://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/what-cluck-case-gender-changing-hen.htm#:~:text=Hen%20feathers%20tend%20to%20be,the%20ridge%20of%20their%20back. 120.56.99.0 (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

You could describe it as a section of an article about chickens - it's not a separate species, so there is no reason to create a new article in which half of the content from the main article will be repeated anyway. BZPN (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then you create that article now and i quit. 117.242.94.232 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

117, Just to point out, over at the English Wikipedia en:Rooster redirects to en:Chicken .... so if they don't have a gender-specific article then why do we need one?,

As BZPN correctly notes if the article were to be created it would be a copypaste of what's already at Chicken so readers would gain nothing from having this article (other than having to click and scroll more to find the information they may want/need). –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Davey2010, that article, Rooster, itself already had content before it was deleted and turned into a redirect for this article, Chicken, so you should just copy and paste that content in this article now itself immediately, that is my solution to this problem now, so do it please now. 120.56.99.71 (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Why should we have an article for "Rooster" when we don't have one for "hen"? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

We should have an article for Rooster because it exists and create an article for Hen as it does not exist yet, so that this problem is destroyed now and this article flourishes along with that article now itself. 2409:40F4:100A:54E1:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No, but we could have a section in Chicken on terminology, like enwiki does. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Then you do it by yourself and change that article. 2409:40F4:9:4294:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

No, thanks. I'm not the one who wants the article. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, i will create that article and copy paste that. 120.56.167.178 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't edit it because of an error, someone help! 120.56.169.92 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I edited it into an article now and it flourishes! 117.196.146.223 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should have a section in Chicken on terminology, like English Wikipedia does. 120.56.210.101 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Too many pages in Category:Europe

Can you verify this? 2601:644:8184:F2F0:F404:19C5:84B:7057 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I'm taking care of it now. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I sadly don't have as much time as I thought :( So if anybody else wants to, I'd really appreciate the help. Or I can do it, but later. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

There are 24 pages right now. That's a reasonable number, although diffusing further would be fine if there are categories to diffuse into. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Demographic evolution in table form for populated areas of Slovakia

I would like to add: Demographic evolution in table form by places in Slovakia. Anyone against?

This is part of a multi-"project" (Modul:SK & Template:SK). Example of table: hr:Fintice#Stanovništvo. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Just remember to use a full stop (5.8) instead of a comma (5,8) for a decimal separator. 2601:644:8184:F2F0:F404:19C5:84B:7057 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead. It is better to have data presented in tables. Steven1991 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done simplewiki is "infected" with template and module SK.

If helpful post, then fine

"SAM" is an article about a person that seems non-notable.

This link 'needs a second opinion',
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SAM&oldid=10176036

I am not going to take any of this, to AfD; However, i am likely to support, if someone does take it to AfD.

Another thing, come time, (then) SAM should redirect to a disambig page, in my opinion.--Thoughts? 2001:2020:C325:AB23:ADE0:3EA7:373D:A13B (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC) /2001:2020:C325:AB23:ADE0:3EA7:373D:A13B (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I adjusted the link so it goes to the right revision. The user who created this page is linked to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japansonglove/Archive. The page should redirect to a disambig page. Also Special:Contribs/Miinorax should be blocked for impersonating Minorax. 71.202.215.54 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

For more context, this is a long-term spammer, and the references are not related to the subject at all; they're related to other people with similar names. 71.202.215.54 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

If  Done, as it seems, then thanks. 2001:2020:C325:AB23:6D2F:C53A:24ED:CF32 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Twinkle error

My Twinkle tool is not working specially rollback, Good Faith, Revert Vandal features. When I try to click on rollback it gives reply "Grabbing data of earlier revisions: The "token parameter must be set"." How I can fix this error. Anyone can help me? Bensebgli (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bensebgli Try clearing you cache and refreshing the page. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Cactusisme. I did but still not working. I also try gave some tries by logging out, clearing browser history, browsers caches. Bensebgli (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Try using a different browser or on mobile? @Bensebgli Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes Mobile. Bensebgli (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Try on another device. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 23:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hmm okay. Means no fix for such error? Bensebgli ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems to work for others. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 00:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bensebgli Do you have TwinkleGlobal installed? (See Meta:User:Xiplus/TwinkleGlobal), This will enable you to use it on any Wikipedia I think, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but it has minimum features. Try deactivating and activating twinkle. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Cactusisme They have Twinkle installed via https://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile but I don't know if that's maintained or what, Their common.js page looks a mess which makes me wonder if this is all because it's been installed incorrectly?, –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't twinkle mobile require minerva.js instead? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bensebgli Try removing all of the Twinkle stuff from User:Bensebgli/common.js and replace it with:

mw.loader.load('//vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); // User:Plantaest/TwinkleMobile by vi:User:Plantaest

–Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where I made a mistake. Yes I've installed Twinkle via [1]. It was working, but 2-3 days ago it stopped working on Rollback. Only Undo feature available to use. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 00:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm wondering if there's a global issue somewhere as I wasn't able to revert anyone using en:WP:Redwarn today, Twinkle worked though so that's weird, Sorry I'm lost as to what the issue can be –Davey2010^Talk 00:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Might want to check discord. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Still not working. Bensebgli ^(Talk) 02:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

undo is not a feature of twinkle Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

It works for me Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 00:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Reinstate Animal cruelty in Simple Wikipedia now

I want to reinstate this article in Simple English Wikipedia. Can someone help me in solving this problem here now? 120.56.166.70 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@120.56.166.70, No need as we have Cruelty to animals which Animal cruelty redirects too, This also matches Enwiki (en:Cruelty to animals) so I'm seeing no valid reason to have 2 articles on 1 subject, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 120.56.166.70 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, Animal cruelty has no content, so it is redirected to Cruelty to animals, which has content. In Simple English Wikipedia, Animal cruelty has content, so it is to be made into its article off. 120.56.166.70 (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't need two articles for the same subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Then delete this old article and other outdated redirects immediately! 117.231.195.58 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirects are not articles. We can have multiple redirects, but only one article on a topic. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Then we can move this article to that article now! 61.2.49.66 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The article Cruelty to animals is far superior to the text in the pre-redirect article Animal cruelty, so we would not use that version. It is fine how it is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, then you can move Animal cruelty to Cruelty to animals and also create a section on terminology on Chicken for Rooster like it is in English Wikipedia as to be kept of in Simple English Wikipedia. 61.2.49.66 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The article is not protected, anyone can edit it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but i don't know how to edit that, so you edit that article now and improve that article now. 120.56.171.195 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't really support orders to do items. Wikipedia is a collaborative space, but users are allowed to edit whichever articles they like. We don't respond well to demands Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I just want you to help me in editing articles. 120.56.171.195 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

USERFY (April 09) ?

Race and health in the United States.--Should admins(?) be asked to USERFY? If it is not ready to be published, then i am fine with this article getting USERFY. Thoughts?--An article can be in poor shape, and sometimes i willstill make interwiki (language link) and/or put tags in place. (I see little hope for this article, unless anyone voices any kind of commitment, within reasonable time.)--I am not asking who should (or can) fix the article. 2001:2020:8355:8E83:219E:3E5F:2C7F:6D47 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a copy of the first two paragraphs from the en wiki article and does not appear to be simplified. Interwiki links updated on wikidata and the language chooser shows up. Without the rest of hte article being pulled over, there's a lot of information and context missing. Ravensfire (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Nominated for QD,
simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_health_in_the_United_States&diff=10181172&oldid=10179754
. 2001:2020:8355:8E83:616E:BB15:179D:D31D (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster
 Done (and quick-Deleted). 2001:2020:8355:8E83:600C:92CD:E098:2BC1 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Redirects to Wiktionary

I'm sure we've discussed this a million times in the past, but I'm curious about the current consensus. How do we feel about redirects to Wiktionary? See these short pages. I thought in the past we didn't want this. Maybe that thought has changed. They seem rather useless to me. A red link in this case is almost more useful, as it may encourage somebody to actually write something. This isn't an RfD, I'm just curious what the community thinks of these. --Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I am more in favor of linking it straight to Wiktionary wherever needed. Redirects don't work crosswiki; and it makes no sense to create page with soft redirect when we can link directly or create a wikipedia page wherever applicable. BRP ^ever 01:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

An advantage of redirects is that if we ever create an article for the title, everything that links to it will automatically be linking to the new article. With direct-to-Wiktionary links, if we create an article, direct links to Wiktionary would have to be converted. I know I've found cases where a direct link to Wiktionary was in an article when there was an article it could point to instead.

I don't really like either option, though. I prefer to either use different language for the term or explain it. I don't like for readers to have to go to another site to understand what they're reading.

By the way, Category:Redirects to Wiktionary may not have all of our redirects to Wiktionary. It only has the ones that use the {{Wiktionary redirect}} template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of pushing people offsite. I'd rather we didn't have an article on each individual term, but rather these terms all linked to one page based here that can either have the desired glossary of terms in the simple word list, or it has a basic overview and then a link to the Wiktionary.

For instance above would link to Glossary of simple terms#above or similar. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RefToolbar - Cite label missing

Hi, the "Cite" label on Wikipedia:RefToolbar (WikiEditor) has disappeared as has whatever label used to be for the down arrow,

The RefToolbar now shows as a right arrow only (no Cite label next to it)

Click on that right arrow

A down arrow, cite name icon (tick) and cite error check (red cross) show underneath

the down arrow when you click on it shows cite web, news, book and journal (down arrow used to have a label)

Assuming this is an error somewhere?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Dubious (March 2008)

New article, Timashyovsk.--Not ready to be published (and i 'feel' it might have problems that make it ready for QD).--USERFY, is an idea, i think.--Anyone (else) can take this to AfD, if so desired.--(If the article is AI slop, then i have seen it worse.)--Note: i have not added language-link (interwiki); I am not looking for info about who should fix the article.--Good luck finding justification for QD, since i have not yet. 2001:2020:C325:AB23:6D2F:C53A:24ED:CF32 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Correction: April 08 March 2008. 2001:2020:8355:8E83:219E:3E5F:2C7F:6D47 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

The article now has 'the Scarlet Letter of A.I. slop' - the {.{AI notice}} --I will not (or expect not to) improve this article. But the next similar article, i might consider cutting away the A.I. slop at the end of the article, and that might be enough to keep. 2001:2020:C335:8778:55CA:2CB1:3E2D:5594 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC) /original poster

Improve request

Can somebody improve this article? i think it's has a AI written article. — Raayaan9911 16:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Raayaan9911: I did some on the lead and the first section. I also did some general formatting. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Raayaan9911 01:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

"Notability"

I was recently thinking that for a word used so prominently on simple wikipedia, "notability" could hardly be considered a very simple word. Out of the three commonly-used guideline simple wordlists I could find(VOA, 1500, and LIST), none of them use the word "notable". While I understand that some words will not appear in a guideline wordlist, I think the idea of using the word "notability" is confusing to non-English readers: the word "to note or write" becomes a noun that means "something that is worthy of note". I don't find the connection from "note" to "important" very evident, and I believe there are better alternatives to the word. Instead, perhaps "important" and "importance" could be used, which has a more straightforward meaning, and is on all three wordlists that I have mentioned. Or maybe another alternative would work. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 01:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Whilst I do think that we should try and simplify our guidance and guidelines to be more accessible, a reminder that the language of the encyclopedia is for the content of the encyclopedia in mainspace, and not necessarily used within the governance of the site.

On changing the wording, notability doesn't actually correspond to important. There are arguably very important things that are not-notable and plenty of things that are notable and aren't interesting or important at all. Generally we use the word "notable" simply because people have written about it, which is the level we require for things like GNG.

I agree that it would be nice if we could expand on what we mean in our guidance and change things wherever possible to be more simple. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we can add a short definition in parentheses after the initial use of the word in various places. Kdammers (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as long as the doses are kept small?

redirect: Ostrazismus (Psychologie).--This links to nothing (and there probably is no requirement for such).--Some things might be somewhat strange to some people (or even to myself).--The redirect does touch upon one of the longest discussions on Simple-wiki, during the last ten years.--No big problem yet (is what i am feeling, or thinking). 2001:2020:8355:8E83:E06D:D79C:2CED:297A (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are suggesting - this is currently redirected to social rejection. I'm not sure I think we need this redirect (why "psychologie"?), but it does go somewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"Psychologie" is from one of the c. 6000 languages that has a word for psychology.--With German language, now 'knocked off the list', there are 5999 languages left.--For starters i am thinking that some user should maybe encouraged to have
[.[social rejection|Ostrazismus (Psychologie)]], on their user-page, instead of a redirect.--If this is just a one-off thing in mainspace, then maybe one can ignore this (or see thru one's fingers).--If this post gives an idea of what i am suggesting, then fine. 2001:2020:C335:8778:91CA:D62E:75A9:1A39 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)/original poster /2001:2020:C335:8778:91CA:D62E:75A9:1A39 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think we can safely remove this redirect. In English, people would likely refer to it as ostracism, so the source of the redirect should be ostracism psychology) or similar. Ostracism was an Athenian procedure of banning someone from the city. Eptalon (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

i hav deleted the redirect, people in this Wikipedia are unlikely to search for it in this way Eptalon (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! 2001:2020:C335:8778:4968:5C7:9D71:2881 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)