Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Teahouse)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


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

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

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

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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

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

Are you in the right place?

Vandal Warner

[change source]

I put on Vandal Warner, but I can't find it when I'm editing talk pages. Why? Magnolioideae (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolioideae What do you mean 'Vandal Warner'. I suggest using twinkle as it is easier. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 09:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Vandal Warner is a gadget you can enable in preferences. @Magnolioideae: I tried using it when I started editing here, and I believe in a certain theme it appears in the sidebar but the buttons have never seemed to work for me. I just use Twinkle or do it manually instead. --Ferien (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme Okay. I'll just stick to using Twinkle instead. @Ferien Thank you! Maggie🌺 talk edit 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien, You're a life saver thank you!, The buttons have never worked for me either and I just assumed it was somehow related to Twinkle, Never knew I had Vandal Warner enabled so thank you :), –Davey2010Talk 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien One question though: How do you install Vandal Warner in manually? Maggie🌺 talk edit 15:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolioideae, when I meant "do it manually", I meant applying the user warn templates manually by adding {{subst:uw-vand1}} (for example) to talk pages, rather than using Vandal Warner to apply them. --Ferien (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Thank you for explaining this misunderstanding :) Maggie🌺 talk edit 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it works here anyways. (for most people) Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you've enabled the "Vandal Warner" tool but can't find it while editing talk pages, here are a few things to check:
  1. Compatibility: Ensure that the Vandal Warner tool is compatible with the current version of the platform you're using (e.g., Wikipedia). Sometimes, updates to the platform can cause issues with older tools.
  2. Correct Setup: Verify that you've correctly installed or activated the tool in your preferences or user scripts. Double-check the installation instructions to make sure everything is set up properly.
  3. Script Conflicts: Other user scripts or gadgets might conflict with Vandal Warner, preventing it from displaying. Try disabling other scripts temporarily to see if that resolves the issue.
  4. Page Type: Vandal Warner may only be visible or active on specific types of pages. Ensure you’re on a talk page or a page where the tool is designed to function.
  5. Browser Issues: Clear your browser cache or try a different browser to see if the tool appears.
Rizwan867 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizwan867 Does it work for you?, I'm curious now, –Davey2010Talk 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Establishments and disestablishments

[change source]

"Establishments" and "disestablishments" are pretty complex, and simple wikipedia has pretty much just copied these words from Wikipedia. I wonder if it would make more sense to change these words to "beginnings" and "endings", respectively. This would mean, of course, that "beginnings" and "endings" would also include Births and Deaths. What are your thoughts? MrMeAndMrMeTalk 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had consensus to do something like that. Maybe the discussion got archived? -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent discussion (from April 2024) can be found here: Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 157#Category move discussion ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It looks like a consensus had been established that a simplification would be useful. However, a consensus for the specifics had not been reached, and the discussion died out and was archived. As many others have pointed out, words like "started" or "created" can have issues based on the scope of "establishments" being too broad. However, if we use broader terms like "Beginnings" and "Endings", this would make things simpler. Additionally, Simple Wikipedia is supposed to generally have simpler category structure. By including categories such as "births", "deaths", and "introductions" (were the category "introductions" to ever be used in the first place), this makes the category structure simpler. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will there be many cases of horrible English or experimental-English or unknown-English? "A 'company beginning' and a 'company ending' - not sure i have heard of the nouns 'beginning' and 'ending' about companies.--A company ceases its operations etc.--Have there been cases where we had to go back on some grand idea that we started to roll out?--How about starting with only smaller pieces of the category tree, before we start work higher up in the 'food chain'. 2001:2020:331:CCFE:2CDA:A476:2D02:BF45 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would not refer to something as "company endings in 1942". The category is called "endings in 1942", meaning that the company was "ended" in 1942. This is perfectly normal English. It goes the same way with disestablishments. It is not referred to as "company disestablishments", it is referred to as "a company that was disestablished." In this case, you would say "a company that was ended".
The point of the category system is that the parent category is a description that can still apply to its children. For example, an article in Category:Biology is also a valid article in Category:Science (with some rare exceptions, such as container categories). In English Wikipedia, an article that is in en:Category:2020 disestablishments belongs just as much as en:Category:2020 endings. This is my primary reasoning for suggesting the terms "endings" and "beginnings", instead of "started", or "created", or whatever else. By default, "endings" and "beginnings" would not result in "horrible/experimental/unknown" English.
This would not be a particularly big project, either. According to AuntOf6, there are about 6,436 relevant "establishments" and "disestablishments" categories. Including births, deaths, debuts, etc., you could add another 2000 or so. Using Cat-A-Lot, this would maybe take a couple of days at most. I have no idea how long it would take to fully automate this. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 15:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey identical person, 2001:2020 you look like me except I have this, 2001:569. 2001:569:7C55:9000:91D9:EB7A:44FC:90C3 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that the phrase "disestablishments" does not always work. In the case of Anglo-Saxon runes, it lists these ruins as being disestablished in the 8th century, as though they were formally disestablished in the 700s. However, a much better way to put this would be to say that the ruins "ended" in the 8th century, instead. This is the same for all languages, which were started in a certain century, and ended in another century. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 01:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Runes and ruins are different concepts. From the context I assume you mean the former. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross Yes, the writing system seems to have "ended" or "not used" after the 11th century. Even though english wikipedia does not do this, I agree that it is a good idea to date languages in the category section from when languages came into usage and (if applicable) left common usage. However, that is another discussion. In any case, the term "disestablishments" does not really work with this. MrMeAndMrMeTalk 16:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

[change source]
See the main page: Non-free content proposals

I know this was brought up fairly recently but I missed it due to being on vacation. The old-timers can tell you I would start a discussion every year about this. This time I'm proposing that we would solely allow those pictures that are already being used on enwiki. No other non-free images would be allowed under any condition. This would solve a lot of the time and effort issues that have already been brought up many times before. Any image that doesn't appear of the enwiki version of the page would be forbidden to use here. I think this would solve the effort problems and also allow non-free images for TV shows, comic books, and other cases where having an image would add clarification to articles. Thoughts? fr33kman 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:
  • I assume this means we would be hosting images here. How much administrative burden would this add?
  • What if a non-free image being used on enwiki stops being used there? Would we remove it here, or keep it on the grounds that it used to be used on enwiki?
For convenience, here are some relevant policy/guideline pages I found on enwiki:
-- Auntof6 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt that what wikimedia is for? [1] Rathfelder (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: In general, yes. But there are some images that Commons doesn't allow. Some of those can be uploaded at enwiki, following certain requirements, and this proposal is that we also allow it here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a non-free images stops being used on enwiki then I would think we would stop using it here. As for admin burden this is why I'm suggesting that we only permit images that are already on enwiki. This way they will have already gone through the burden for us, we'd simply follow what they do. We'd let them hash out the rationale, copyright concerns etc and we'd use the image after enwiki has addressed all those issues and simply use the end product. fr33kman 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend that only still images being allowed and that non-free video clips, text, and the like be banned. There will be a brief amount of initial overhead as we create the appropriate guidelines and usage templates for local usage but that would be a one-time only thing and that day-to-day use of non-free images would be easy to implement and that the local upload of the image would be simple to enact. fr33kman 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fr33kman: If a non-free image stops being used on enwiki, how would we know? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bot could be made to monitor the situation and then inform the project or remove the image. Then manual deletion would need to be performed. I don't see it as something that would need to happen often. Enwiki doesn't often delete non-free images very often. fr33kman 20:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ment to say that it would not be a problem that would come up much. fr33kman 09:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: see Bart Simpson vs w:Bart Simpson as a simple example of article improvements offered by a rigorous non-free policy.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure if Mediawiki offers interwiki file embedding into pages (other than from Commons), so that might need to be a feature request to avoid rehosting every en.wiki file. - Tule-hog (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the global file usage between the first and second hints the non-free use policy is a broad issue in the Mediawiki ecosystem. Tule-hog (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each image would need to be hosted locally, commons can't host them. fr33kman 20:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting interlinking from en.wiki not commons, hence hosted there (not commons). My comment is in reference to that not being possible as of now (as far as I'm aware). Tule-hog (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent for this within Wikimedia. I'm not sure how feasible such a technical exception compared to the other wikis would be. TheDJ (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - Simple English Wikipedia, like any other independent project, should have the autonomy to host its own non-free images. This would definitely enhance the quality of TV shows, comic books, and movie related articles. Also, using non-free images from English Wikipedia seems like a feasible and effective approach. So, why not? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 06:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Based on the feedback from other admins, it appears that implementing this proposal would demand significant manpower, which we may not currently have on SimpleWiki. While I personally appreciate the idea of hosting our own images, I lack the experience to fully understand the implications. Therefore, I will defer to the judgment of those with more experience in this matter. I am changing my vote to neutral, as I neither support nor oppose the proposal at this time. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, i guess this is a comment now; this wiki does not have 'neutral votes'... Eptalon (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using {{Neutralvote}} works? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And as to counting: not counting towards support, not counting towards oppose,not counting towards the total number of votes? Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Got it. I guess my comment works as feedback instead of a vote. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main reason why we don't allow image uploads, and take the images from commons is that handling the formalitiers associated with it is likely too much for our small community. Yes, it might be thrilling to say that to illustrate an article about a movie you can now use a scaled-down movie poster. I also think that the content of this Wikipedia should stay free. For the last 20 years, this wikipedia was able to survive with the images/media it had from commons. So, from my side, this is a clear oppose.--Eptalon (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I haven't made a !vote on this either way but reading into this further now, I think Djsasso's comment, albeit the one he made on a past proposal on this same issue in 2011(!), says it best: A> We don't have the manpower to deal with it. (not even en can deal with it) B> It takes away from this wiki being a simple wiki. ie by adding complicated licensing issues into the mix. Doing this leads directly into us being a copy of en. We are supposed to not be en. One of our major differences is that we don't use non-free images because they complicate the editing of the wiki with complex licensing issues. To be frank I don't think many people here I can't actually think of a single editor here who has the knowledge necessary to police this. Now this isn't a knock against them its simple fact that fair-use image law is very very very complicated. I really don't think much has changed since that comment was made in 2011. If anything, I believe we now have fewer active editors than this wiki did in 2011. The non-free content criteria as it exists on en right now is very complex and it is the type of thing we would have to transfer to protect us from a legal perspective. It isn't something we could simplify any further. I really don't think it is worth the work on our end when a reader can just go to enwiki and find it instantly. --Ferien (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestions about importing from the English Wikipedia or transcluding the images through linking to the English Wikipedia also do not appear to be technically feasible. There are 500,000 non-free images linked to articles on enwiki, mostly images already, with almost 400 orphaned files due for deletion. Editors on the English Wikipedia have done their job to make the non-free images valid for use on their articles and are not intended for use cross-wiki. As stated above, each file needs to pass numerous criteria to simply exist and one of those is that it needs a valid article to link to and an explanation on why it's needed on that article. And realistically, the justifications for using the articles on en's articles and our articles will have to be completely different because our articles are not the same. It is not going to be something we can do en masse, it is going to be a lot of work simply to bring the non-free content here – as each one will have to be worked on one-by-one – let alone maintain it and ensure the justifications continue to remain valid. --Ferien (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which non-free use criteria would be invalidated by the 'simple english' version of the same article? I think that question is the crux for this particular proposal. Tule-hog (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm focusing on point 8 of the non-free content criteria, contextual significance. Would the lack of a poster be "detrimental" to the understanding to the article of Furiosa (movie), as one local example? I personally don't think so. On the enwiki article, w:Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, I think the need is greater, but honestly, I'm not confident it would be "detrimental" if it were not there.
    I find that specific criterion to probably be the broadest and most complex one because it just depends on how a certain person views the need, ie it is a subjective criterion and not objective. Copied here for the benefit of other readers: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. With quick deletion criteria, that we would likely have to expand to allow for non-free content should we go ahead with this, we are looking for things that can be checked easily so a deletion request can easily be accepted or declined. With non-free content, that'd definitely be more challenging. I should note, that criterion can be simplified, perhaps to something like Non-free content can only be used if it would really help readers understand a topic and not having it would stop them from understanding it., but the issue with how subjective it is remains. --Ferien (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea is that only images that pass enwiki's criteria would be used. Enwiki would do the work, we'd reap the benefits. We'd also likely only be talking about using a couple of thousand images in total. fr33kman 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Enwiki's criteria is dependent on their articles and need in given articles. Continuing on from the example above, the associated file for this article is w:en:File:Furiosa A Mad Max Saga.jpg. I do now recognise this is a template, so it would not be as much work as I had initially expected for some articles, however the template uses the following default response to "Purpose of use": Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work, product or service for which it serves as poster art. (bolding mine). I find it extremely difficult to say our local article, Furiosa (movie), offers sufficient critical commentary to the work to use non-free material, because it is a basic description at best. This would also be the case for many movie articles. Enwiki's work alone will not allow us to use non-free content, because our articles are different and non-free images have to be imported/uploaded for specific articles. --Ferien (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I see why it would beneficial, but I also see how much of a burden it could be on the admins' shoulders. If this is approved, I will not be helping, not because I don't like the idea, but because I am very afraid of copyright and similar issues (same reason why I have never uploaded anything on Commons). So, as a non-admin who won't be helping much, I vote  Neutral. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 15:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was originally going to stay out of this discussion but the more I think about it, the more I realise the problems. If we had the editor numbers we used to have in the late 2000s / early 2010s I believe this proposal would be a no-brainer. However, as Djasso states in their !vote, we do not have the manpower nowadays to sustain such a system. And while thinking about the proposal of using bots, such a system would be difficult to maintain and be generally unreliable. There is also the problems of enforcing fair use criterion which because of our low editor numbers would be a problem (a legal problem at that).
TLDR: Non-free images are too dependent on manpower that we just don't have, so I Oppose.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 17:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not handled properly, this could be one of the biggest problems we might have to deal with here. I'd also like to Oppose this. However, if there is an actual means to automatically import, evaluate, license and update image based on enwiki is in place, I will be happy to change to support.-BRP ever 16:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly here to seek approval

[change source]

I recently created a category for pages tagged as {{historical}} (Category:Historical pages) but wanted to see if there was any opposition to me making it so any transclusion of the template would automatically add it to the cat.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition from me. --Ferien (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 12:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good fr33kman 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections after a week,  Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF ignoring or just not responding to my emails?????

[change source]

Is there a reason for that?????? 14.52.105.175 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) What mails? I do not this is a place to discuss WMF mails. Probably they are busy, or you send something offensive/spam. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sent several emails to them about something I will not be disclosing here
Im not sure where else would be the place to discuss getting responses back from WMF to emails sent to them if this is not the place for it 14.52.105.175 (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe meta? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: User blocked (open proxy), global block requested. MathXplore (talk) 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I sent them another email about the same thing just now... Im really really really really really hoping they get to it as soon as possible... 166.198.157.47 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which address are you sending these emails to? --Ferien (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Im sending these emails to makeanotherplay2009<at>outlook<dot>com, I just dont understand why they keep on ignoring my emails or not responding to them. I used to have an account on Wikipedia called M*dAtl*nticB*by and it got globally locked because of several abusive admins and another user named M*gnolia677 who kept on harrassing me and still keep on harrassing me to this day... I dont know what to do... 42.114.42.220 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? That is not the official WMF email, so it makes sense that you aren't getting a response. And the admins weren't abusing, they were doing what they should. Stop block evading. Blocks are meant to apply to you, not for individual accounts or IPs. And Magnolia677 stopped editing 5 years ago! 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 03:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Move TV seasons

[change source]

On English Wikipedia they removed the parentheses for all articles about TV seasons, per an RFC. For example, from The Simpsons (season 1) to The Simpsons season 1. Should Simple English Wikipedia do this too?

Note: RFC stands for "Request for comment".
Yamazaki Kaoru Here on the Simple talk we don't use voting templates. Also, that seems like a big change. I never expected that to happen. We (Simple Wikipedia) should have our own discussion. After all, we should not just blindly import rules from over there, but instead discuss them and see if they should be here too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haumeon (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Haumeon: I think we do use the kind of template that Kaoru used to show support or opposition. Did you see a guideline or something about that? -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will *your* talk page, *host* a new thread?

[change source]

Alternative literature (see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_literature
). Is there any wikipedia-user that will let their Talk page, host the creation of a stub? (That stub would be the start of the title, Alternative literature.) Regards from IP-for-all-of-2024's-third-quarter: 2001:2020:359:8904:8167:8349:1882:33F4 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, You're more than welcome to use WP:SANDBOX, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You (or anyone) can start that article at Sandbox.--I will not (start that article there).--If this reply is regarded as simple and polite, then fine. Thank you. 2001:2020:359:8904:298A:C4BA:BD57:D0DC (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:8904:8167:8349:1882:33F4[reply]

QD of non-offensive redirects (and justification for such)

[change source]

When a redirect is bad (without being offensive), can QD be justified? How then would one justify the following QD (without saying more than that it is a bad redirect)? Please see

simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geothermal_power&action=history
, which shows the bad redirect for Geothermal_power. 2001:2020:359:8904:298A:C4BA:BD57:D0DC (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see m:DDR, w:WP:CHEAP. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme Yes, but this redirect is clearly bad, as it redirects from a type of energy source to a specific power plant. 2601:644:9083:5730:488:19E9:B97E:CC52 (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not it redirect it to geysers, which are geothermal power sources Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target page isn't about geysers in general, it's just about one particular group of geysers in California. 2601:644:9083:5730:488:19E9:B97E:CC52 (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the redirect to Geothermal energy Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 03:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks! 2601:644:9083:5730:488:19E9:B97E:CC52 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red flags of science (popping up again)

[change source]

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

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

Considering that most of the sources that talks about it came about recently and the fact that this was just recent discovery (the NASA article as of writing is just one day ago), I highly doubt that this article will be suitable for English Wikipedia as per the lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. Maybe giving it more time to have more coverage? But as of now, it's best to just de-publish the article given that it has no article yet in en-wiki. AsianStuff03 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:AsianStuff03 brings up some excellent points.--For now, i do not think it would be enough to tag the article (with any number of tags).--Perhaps we could move the mention, to the relevant article about the blah-blah-sphere of the atmosphere (the one which is at one hundred and umpteen km/miles above the Earth's surface).--With the current article, i think that we are running the risk of it becoming a milestone in a negative way. Perhaps not unlike, The Emperor's New Clothes.--Anyone has my support in nominating the article for Delete (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]
Hi, have you thought about starting a WP:RfD? ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that another Wikipedia (English or any other Wik) does not have an article on this topic is irrelevant. We are an separate Wik and not some sort of daughter of the English Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, anyone is welcome to suggest the contents of our article, to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics .--Not even their "ten-foot pole cabinet", will be opened in connection with that. At least not this month.--Me? I will be busy fixing other articles, and sniffing out other dubious (or even not-yet-ready-to-be-wikiPublished) stuff. Good luck! 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This change in electric potential energy [sic] is just the right amount to explain the supersonic solar wind."--This sentence has at least two areas that ('might') need work (and at some point one would also have to make wiki-links).--Suggestion: Anyone can write an article about the rocket taking off and splashing down (and then anyone can fill in (or dabble) about the scientific observations done while the rocket was underway). That article would quite possibly be a 'keeper'.--As for our (bad-science article or) 'science' article, one would need a nomination for Delete, before I 'can' 'bus in' more science experts to also look at why we should not keep the article (and likely not keep the title, either).--Good luck (while i am working on other articles, and looking out for nomination for Delete). 2001:2020:335:9888:29BA:2379:7311:EB0B (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]

    Clarification: Suggestion: Anyone can write a new article about the rocket taking off and ... .--Another thing: canvassing is not permitted, of course. 2001:2020:335:9888:C5F3:A2A:1C92:A271 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC) //2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765[reply]

Proposal

[change source]

To move Category:Pokémon monsters to Category:Pokémon species? It is a more relevant title related to the game.

Wikipedia users mind-blown after finding hidden function they never knew about

[change source]

I just thought you people should know. It'll be interesting if it increases traffic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same thing. It's comical how wrong they are about exactly what Simple is, as it is obviously not a "function" but an entirely different website, but even reliable journalists often get the finer points wrong when writing about WP. Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its kinds funny how they confused it. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 03:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would really be interesting is to see if the number of editors increases. Eptalon (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here comes some more: People only just learning hidden Wikipedia function that makes site easier to read. Well, it's not like this wiki has been around since 2001 or something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting this to be some sort of button or feature that no one knew existed .... but yeah Simple is more than just a "function", Surprised these aren't DailyFail news pieces to be honest, –Davey2010Talk 18:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, like am I missing something. But yes, definately more than a function; they got this idea from a viral TikTok, interesting. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 19:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These things typically don't increase the number of editors we get, from what I have seen. This one came up on my YouTube Shorts a couple years back, as a hack for "beating teachers" :O (but didn't end up in any increase in editors) --Ferien (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's so weird how they write about this Wikipedia as if it was some "hacker tip" and how they tell you to change the URL instead of, you know, checking the languages or simply coming to this site. It really shows how little they know about how Wikimedia projects work. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 22:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two new good articles

[change source]

Hello, Nestor Makhno and Temple of Confucius are now good articles. I promoted them earlier today. Thank you to all who contributed, good work. Eptalon (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon Remember to move them, I did it for you. Thanks Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special character sort keys

[change source]

Hi, I proposed two changes regarding special character sort keys. Please, join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories#Special character sort keys. Thank you :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject under vanished user name

[change source]

We have WikiProject Paralympicsat User:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/WikiProject Paralympics. This seems to be the only page for this WikiProject (no userbox template, for example). It seems to me that WikiProjects should be under active users. Does anyone want to adopt this project? If not, maybe we should close the project. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Can I adopt? I don't want to let a Wiki project die. Can you move for me? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I can, but I'm in the middle of something right now. I'd want to take time to make sure I get all the pieces and change the old user name, so hold on until I can get to it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will work on the template. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: If you work on any part of it, it will make it harder for me to change everything over. Can you wait until I get to it? It won't be long. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sure. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Your comment on User talk:Cactusisme/Wikiproject Paralympics Barnstar says that the original was made by me. What original? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: I didn't make that. I just used the generic barnstar template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it still a good design for the wikiproject. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the topicon for? -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a icon Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 02:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: "Just an icon"? A WikiProject here doesn't really need a top icon. But if you're going to have one, make sure it's set up for the project that's using it. Look closely at what's in it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 05:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: You still need to look closely at what you have in the icon code. I'm going to let you figure it out so you get some practice debugging. :D -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I'm not really good, but let me see. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: It's pretty obvious. I'm sure you'll find it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Check now :D Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a really funny and dumb error I made. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably check before I post next time. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Yep, it was the name of the project. :D Not sure the gold medal makes a good image for it, but whatevs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now you figured out how I got the code. Don't tell anyone. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: Why not? Plagiarism is an old and respected technique in coding. I made good use of it during my career, and others copied code from me. Why reinvent the wheel? -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.. Really, wow. :D I don't really know this decade old code so maybe it fine. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a CS student, couldn't agree more. That's how coding evolves. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 07:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idea — Admin coaching/mentorship

[change source]

Considering that we've lost 3 sysops this year and the active request for de-adminship, and the ever increasing stress on our dwindling number of admins, I think it would be a good idea to incorporate a version of enwiki's old admin coaching system to help prevent misuse of the admin tools in the first place and familiarize new admins with how to use them. This would also decrease the need for intervention from existing admins to address issues. It does not need to be a fully fledged course, instead being a flexible system where admins that choose to participate can help coach new admins and address their specific needs when they're available. With any system there's going to be some cracks so what are your thoughts on this? FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  12:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, with recent discussion relating to the misuse of tools, I think this is very necessary, so that the admin tools won't be abused. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we unofficially have a system like this already. When I first joined the sysop team just over three years ago now, I think I was given a warm welcome and other admins told me if I needed help with anything I could ask them. I don't see the need for an introduction of a flexible system, I think many admins are just happy to answer questions about using admin tools whenever they'd like – I certainly am at least.. --Ferien (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien How about coaching if you are planning to be admin. You could ask any questions you have to experienced admins. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that can be good, I just don't see a need for a new venue for it. If anyone has any questions they want to ask admins, they can just ask us through our talk pages without having to go through a course :) --Ferien (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good :D FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  11:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we do have this in principle anyway. As an admin, if you don't know something, you are free to ask. I was never a fan of the coachinh system on enwiki, it gives a high level of scrutiny over what could be a daft question. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the same opinion. If things are difficult onwiki, there's IRC to make things easier. BRP ever 16:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cactusisme/WikiProject Paralympics

[change source]

Anyone interested? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

[change source]
Original message at wikimedia-l. You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote and the Elections Committee have certified the results for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) special election.

I am pleased to announce the following individual as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a term until 15 June 2026:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • Ajraddatz

The following seats were not filled during this special election:

  • Latin America and Caribbean
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • South Asia
  • The four remaining Community-At-Large seats

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. You can follow their work on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the U4C and the Elections Committee,

RamzyM (WMF) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to bet on another "special election" happening?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is going to happen. However, it seems this charter and the committee is by far one of the most unpopular one to exist. BRP ever 16:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, how much of this percieved unpopularity is due to voter fatigue and how much of it is because people aren't a fan of the U4C and UCoC.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have your say: Vote for the 2024 Board of Trustees!

[change source]

Hello all,

The voting period for the 2024 Board of Trustees election is now open. There are twelve (12) candidates running for four (4) seats on the Board.

Learn more about the candidates by reading their statements and their answers to community questions.

When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote. The vote is open from September 3rd at 00:00 UTC to September 17th at 23:59 UTC.

To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best regards,

The Elections Committee and Board Selection Working Group

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted earlier (but not easy to prove (?) as of September)

[change source]

WikiProjects

[change source]

Unlike the English Wikipedia, where WikiProjects are managed on dedicated pages, our WikiProjects are hosted in user spaces. By default, this means that all related content, including templates, also resides in the user space. However, could we create templates that, while remaining in user space, can be added to the talk pages of articles to indicate that they are part of a WikiProject? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. The projects are in userspace because they are not official. They are really more like workgroups for people to work together on something. No article (or category or whatever) is really part of a WikiProject, or officially managed or controlled by one, or anything like that. Using the kind of banner templates you describe would contradict that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=9748479"