Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Simple Talk)
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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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]
@Rizwan867 was this comment LLM generated? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian Judging by how it is written it probably is LLM-generated text.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:46, 9 September 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]
    Hello IP, with very few exception, anyone can write an article on anything they like, in Wikipedia. As to the article:
    • there is a site of NASA, explaining it; it also has a nicve (fairly recent) explanation video, see here
    • I find scientific artilces about the effect, the oldest one from 1955, see here
    The article itself is in simple language, so what reason is there to delete or userify it?
    So if you think it should be deleted, make a request; but in my vew, this is a legitimate, simple article Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to check, once every week, if the article has been nominated for Delete.--Taking it from that point (a prospective nomination), will be fine.--Chances are, the article will then crash and burn.--Then the (de-published) article will become a benchmark of sorts, and will serve as a warning of sorts, about one way we might not be taking care of things, in the future.--Train wrecks reach a point, when it is too late to stop (one might say).--It would be possible to take the article (verbatim), and put the title as a section, in some existing article; As a last section in the Arctic area article, will not make the situation go from bad to worse, one might claim.--However, the money shot (so to speak) will be the results from the (prospective) Delete discussion. 2001:2020:351:A342:D51B:FEDC:4A2A:7B37 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[change source]

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

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]
I'd say it's latter. There was large participation in first election and the results were similar.--BRP ever 13:56, 4 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]

Oh hell yeah!! XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 to 4. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:46, 7 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]
That makes sense. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 09:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[change source]

Is there a reason behind that????? 14.192.209.182 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop proxying to evade blocks! The block is meant for YOU, not an individual account or IP, as I said before. Plus, try to communicate with the people on the Wikipedia IRC channel. You might get a better and faster response. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 17:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this comment about their editing, I'm not surprised that they're not getting any responses. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stewards have banned the user now. 🪐 Haumeon the Adventurer 🪐 19:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Haumeon I suppose I'm a bit late to this but please, just ignore the user. Do not reply to them, do not engage with them, report to WP:VIP on sight, and ignore. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or global block, its better Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ this. Stewards will probably act on it faster than our local admins can.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If blah-blah, then (also) nominate for QD ('notability not shown' as of September)

[change source]

If no one can find mention at En-wiki, then also please nominate for QD ('notability not shown in article').--That the second thing has c. nothing to do with the first thing, is an idea that i have no problem with.
This linked article.--(I will not be checking En-wiki for this type, of articles this week. However, I will be busy fixing other articles.)2001:2020:301:C66D:9156:C155:9D04:B262 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:301:C66D:9156:C155:9D04:B262 (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting essay to read in the meantime. :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong, this is a version of en:Green children of Woolpit. However, I agree with Dream Indigo above. 2001:2020, You keep asking other people to do things like nominate pages for deletion, when you could do that yourself. 12.190.177.187 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions - when an article sucks (and seem unencyclopedic) then there will be suggestions et cetera.--I hope it makes things better for ya, when suggestions will come the way - of talk pages. So good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:345:A089:709D:FE93:EFAF:22A3 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only your requests are always difficult to understand (what does If blah-blah, then (also) nominate for QD even mean?), but you are also pretty rude about it. I see no "please", no "thank you"s, but I read words like "sucks". You are talking about articles written by volunteers, be kind, thank you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article you want to delete due to its apparent lack of notability, Green-skinned children of "St. Martin's Land", is a featured article in 3 languages. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 17:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If you (too) are a volunteer, who fixes articles (that individuals choose 'for themselves'), then good for you.--I don't care if an article has 50 blue ribbons and medals of honor, and Best in show, on other wikipedia versions. If an article comes along (here) with green men on Mars, or in a field in England one thousand year ago, then it 'better' have at least one source (or perhaps be a famous story). Or QD is a tool that can come in handy.--For the word "please", then count eleven words after the title. (Note to self: The article seems not to be a hoax (or a tall tale) about green men in an English field. Other wikipedia-users are sort-of vouching for the topic of the article.)--I might miss this thread (while i am busy fixing other articles). Bye. 2001:2020:31B:AD3C:5D1A:B118:5B6A:10C (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:301:C66D:9156:C155:9D04:B262[reply]

Bye bye ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism

[change source]

Continuing discussion from User talk:Davey2010
Hello @Davey2010, I need a secondary opinion about an issue. User:Gotitbro recently removed many categories from a number of articles, citing them as anachronistic in the edit summaries. Could you review these diffs and let me know if you find these categories problematic? I’d appreciate it. I don’t think User:Gotitbro wants to follow my advice and build consensus on the talk pages, and my continued reverts would only lead to edit warring. Here are the diffs: (Special:Diff/9750197, Special:Diff/9750186, Special:Diff/9750208, Special:Diff/9750209, Special:Diff/9750246, Special:Diff/9750250, Special:Diff/9750253, Special:Diff/9750257, Special:Diff/9750263, Special:Diff/9750276, Special:Diff/9750289 (Somehow Category:Monarchs of Afghanistan was left alone, but Pakistani monarchs was removed as "anachronistic"), Special:Diff/9750295, there are still lots more, as they spent a significant amount of time removing my contributions. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The issues with nationalistic POV and anachronistic editing were originally notified at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Chronic sockpuppeteer and further discussed at User talk:Gotitbro. I am brining these issues to a larger audience here.
A specific reply to the above: Remove Afghan as well if need be, I was more focused on clearly recent introduction of anachronistic POV. Also most of these diffs have nothing to do with cats.
Coming to the diffs themselves in order, the first one is not mine; "Indus Publications" is not RS and neither is "Indus Greek kingdom" used in any scholarly or historical RS; limiting the Sikh Empire anachronistcally largely to Pakistan is obvious POV, the term "Indo-Pak subcontinent" is very uncommon and largely not used in scholarly literature, Tibetan control was very transitory and barely of note listing that is dubious; removing every term related to India is obvious POV; lisitng any of these monarchs as Pakistani is obviously supported by none of the sources and is clearly anachronistic and ahistoric as is lisiting centuries under that appelation.
You would know that these are larely your own OR and synthesis, since none of this is supported by actual RS. I have not spent my time removing your contributions, merely reducing on the face POV is not a bar on your contributions. That you continue with the same edits [1], [2] is also telling.

Gotitbro (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The effort here is to introduce the anachronistic and ahistoric terms as "ancient Pakistan/Pakistani" and the like (no accepted scholarly source uses these terms), listing/categorizing Mughal and other emperors as "Pakistani" (akin to lisiting Mesopotamians as ancient Iraqis and Roman emperors as ancient Italians) and the like; no other wiki accepts this. I am not the only one who has noticed this POV and anachronistic disruption, enwiki users when the user's recent unblock appeal also did (after being blocked for socking); with blatant POV and SYNTH articles such as Ancient Pakistan (says something when the user completely redirected Ancient India to India naming dispute - another dubious article created to serve as a proxy for "Ancient Pakistan"), Middle kingdoms of Pakistan, Hellenic Pakistan (the latter two terms are entirely OR) being noted as reasons to deny that appeal.
The goal here is to render anything within the history of South Asia no matter how remotely connected to modern-day Pakistan to be entirely within the domain of "Ancient Pakistan" and the like. Similar efforts at historic distortions at the Polish (WW2) and Macedonian Wikipedias (Alexander the Great/Macedon) were undertaken by various POVPUSHing disrupters and took a great deal of effort to put an end to. The faster this is nipped in the bud the better, ahistoricism is not going to serve our projects any good. Gotitbro (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not unique to Pakistan. There are categories on English Wikipedia, such as en:Category:16th century in Bolivia, although the country was named after Simón Bolívar who was born in 1783. The borders of Bolivia didn't exist at that time either. There is en:Category:10th century in Ukraine, although there seems to be no evidence that the name "Ukraine" was used at that time. Also it was part of Kievan Rus', which is the progenitor of both Ukraine and Russia. 12.190.177.187 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the IP's response, there is also en:Category:Ancient Slovakia, en:Category:Ancient Bosnia and Herzogovania, en:Category:Ancient Croatia, en:Category:Hellenistic Croatia, and en:Category:Ancient Turkey; all of which, based on the reasoning in the above discussion, too could arguably be considered "anachronistic." – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 16:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That other anachronistic stuff may or may not exist is of no concern to us for the present topic at hand, our concern is South Asia which I know enough about to see the blatant ahistoric POV issues that are being purveyed here on simplewiki. There is a reason anachronistic "ancient Pakistan" related edits find no space in any wiki (as clearly witnessed in the discussion linked above) or any scholarly literature. The issue is not limited to cats it extends to in article content where nationalistic disruption of a whole slew of articles in the South Asia space has rendered them barely comprehensible to anyone familiar with that topic area. That you simply refuse to see how these edits are problematic is worrying.
PS: I took a look at the "ancient" cats listed above, most of them barely populated and Ancient Turkey actually redirects to :Category:Ancient history of Turkey. None of them exist as articles (not even as redirects), none of them are labelling ancient peoples and entities with modern appelations in articles et. al. Not that any of this should matter, the issue at hand is that your edits in the South Asia are untenable. Gotitbro (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "Ancient Pakistan" lacks a basis in scholarly literature or that the term "Pakistan" cannot be used in an ancient context (prior to the modern country's creation) is certainly incorrect. Numerous reputable works have utilized this term in relation to the region’s history. Mukhtar Ahmed, a well-regarded author on South Asian archaeology whose works are also cited on English Wikipedia, has produced the multi-volume series Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History (Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV, Volume V). He writes, "...archaeologists often call the whole area the Greater Indus Region or the Greater Indus Valley. Thus, Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley; it is more a cultural and geographic unit than a political one." Five Thousand Years of Pakistan ("anachronistic?") by Mortimer Wheeler. Temples of the Indus - Studies in the Hindu Architecture of Ancient Pakistan by Michael W. Meister. The Greeks of Ancient Pakistan by Rafi U. Samad originally published in 2002 by the University of Michigan. Ancient Pakistan by the Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology and University of Peshawar 1964 (Has upto VII volumes). Ancient and Contemporary Pakistan ISBN 9789699837029, 9699837020 by Afrasiab. The rise of civilization in India and Pakistan ("anachron"?) by Bridget Allchin, Raymond Allchin. The Ancient Martial Arts of Indo-Pakistan By Robert G. Zepecki. Early Civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd Millennium BC ("anachronic?") published by Oxford University Press. Ancient, medieval & recent history and coins of Pakistan by Sohail A. Khan. The Indus saga and the making of Pakistan (talks about "ancient pakistan") by Aitzaz Ahsan published by Oxford University Press. The region of Pakistan is often referred to as the "Greater Indus Region" or "Greater Indus Valley" in archaeological and historical contexts, which is also mentioned in the above quoted sources. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 05:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the problem with uncritical source dumping I was talking about. Robert G. Zepecki (self-published/non-RS); Aitzaz Ahsan (politician, not a historian or scholar); Afrasiab (self-published/non-RS); Mukhtar Ahmed (self-published/non-RS), can find nothing about him being a historian (or who he is really), some enwiki articles using non-RS not withstanding; interestingly enough this what is Wheeler's article on enwiki (an FA) has to say about this book "He also wrote a work of archaeological propaganda for the newly formed state, Five Thousand Years of Pakistan (1950)", the same can be said about the bulletin; Rafi U. Samad's book is from Indus Publications (non-RS), the "Original from" label in Google Books is for which libraries supplied it to Google Books for digital scanning. Allchin's book does not even use the term neither does "Forgotten Cities on the Indus", Meister's book also does not use the term beyond the book's title. "Greater Indus Region" or "Greater Indus Valley" are used for the Indus Valley Civilization and should not be seen as alternatives for anachronistic terms, neither should modern appelations for be retrofitted to become historic regions.
You are not going to find a single journal of repute in South Asian studies or any international university department (specializing in the same) using the term or being termed as such, most scholarship prefers South Asia and the like. Misrepresentation of sources and selective sourcing is simply not going to change the fact. A seach for almost any nationalistic and anachronistic term on Google Books is going to lead to some results ("Ancient Turkey", "Ancient United States", "Ancient Germany", "Ancient Switzerland"), that would not legitimize them and make their use any more appropriate especially not on NPOV wiki projects. Gotitbro (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intersection of geography and history creates plenty of problems for categorisation, and there isnt a simple answer. It requires judgement. So although Germany as a state didnt exist until 1870 the concept of Germany certainly did, and we use it. But as far as I can see the concept of Pakistan did not arise until the 20th century and was not articulated until 1933. Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many diffs being brought up here alleging anachronistic editing. I haven't managed to review all of them because each of them is a research effort in its own right, but I have seen enough to be concerned, and I am inclined to agree with Gotitbro at this point of time.
I will start by noting that the MOS is very clear regarding anachronisms. The Simple English Wikipedia does not have Simple English versions of all MOS pages, but it is a well-established guideline that we follow EN where local guidelines/policy do not exist. Per en:MOS:GEO, anachronisms are to be avoided. en:Wikipedia:Presentism clarifies this a bit more - For example, a person born in what is now Germany should not be said to have been born in Germany if the birth was before 1870, when Germany was formed. en:MOS:LDS (while not the same subject matter as what is being discussed here) also explains anachronisms - ...terminology that would be out-of-place or meaningless in the time period being discussed (emphasis mine).
So now the issue here is, when did the concept of "Pakistan" as a place first existed? And more importantly, is that alleged starting time period a view that has gained consensus among academics and historians? In the case of the monarch categorizations above, if a person who was alive back then were to call the relevant subjects a/the "Pakistani monarch", would that person have made sense during that era?
About sources: as pointed out above, just because some sources assert the existence of an "Ancient Pakistan" does not necessarily mean that said concept exists (and to write articles as such is also a violation of en:WP:UNDUE). Sources also need to be examined critically. Concerns about the credibility/reliability of the sources/authors aside, I would like to know from where Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History gains its authority in asserting the term "Ancient Pakistan", because I find this quote from the book problematic (emphasis mine):

...archaeologists often call the whole area the Greater Indus Region or the Greater Indus Valley. Thus, Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley

The use of "thus" implies that the author was advancing a viewpoint/argument at that point in the book i.e. they were making the claim/drawing the conclusion that Ancient Pakistan is therefore essentially the Greater Indus Valley, because of some reasons/premises mentioned earlier in the book. I don't have a copy of the book, but I would like to see in what context the author made the above statement in the book. As it is, I am not willing to outright accept such a quote as evidence of Ancient Pakistan's existence.
And more importantly, I don't see the EN Wikipedia making such similar claims either. Now, I am not saying that EN is always correct in its content, but if we do deviate from EN systematically (as those above edits are showing), then we had better have a very good reason to do so. Chenzw  Talk  18:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chenzw Here is the online copy of the book from which I quoted, in case you'd like to review the context. That being said, what do you think would be a more suitable title per WP:MOS if we're discussing the ancient history of the land that is now Pakistan? Could "Ancient history of Pakistan" be a better alternative? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 18:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the context of the statement (and it's from volume 2, not volume 1 as earlier linked), and don't find the book's claim acceptable. First, the argument leading to the asserted conclusion that "Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley" is a non sequitur - earlier statements do not logically lead to the conclusion. Second, the assertion being made contradicts what the book also claims a few paragraphs earlier - that the term 'Indian subcontinent' as an ecological unit is of questionable utility in the study of prehistory of the region: thus, Pakistan has little in common with the rest of the Indian subcontinent, geographically and ecologically, historically or culturally, beyond a superficial proximity of the terrain. (emphasis mine). What I am seeing here is, on pages 20-21 of the book, the book is simultaneously claiming:
  • Pakistan is a distinctive part of, and has little in common with the Indian subcontinent (the book calls South Asia the Indian subcontinent).
  • Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley (which also comprises parts of the Indian subcontinent).
And really, whether "Ancient Pakistan" exists or not, and whether we should call it "Ancient history of Pakistan", misses the larger point, and I don't wish to have a discussion about the ideal title convention right now. The issue is about the anachronistic editing, not just the Ancient Pakistan matter. Chenzw  Talk  01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your concerns about the contradictions in Mukhtar Ahmed's work, inconsistencies or nuanced statements within a scholarly text don't necessarily undermine its overall reliability?
Also, the use of the term "Ancient Pakistan" by Mukhtar Ahmed is not isolated. Other scholars, including Michael W. Meister in Temples of the Indus - Studies in the Hindu Architecture of Ancient Pakistan, Rafi U. Samad in The Greeks of Ancient Pakistan and The Indus Saga, and the University of Peshawar's multi-volume series Ancient Pakistan (Vol. I-VII) 1964 by the Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, also use this terminology to describe the region's ancient history. Mortimer Wheeler's Five Thousand Years of Pakistan is another example where "Pakistan" is used to discuss the region's long-standing historical and archaeological context.
That said, I agree with you that we need to be cautious about potential anachronism. If the term "Ancient Pakistan" is indeed problematic, we can certainly discuss alternative titles. However, it is worth considering that this term has been used in scholarly works, and we might want to weigh its relevance carefully before dismissing it outright. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 06:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a no started if AI responses such as the one above are going to be dishonestly inserted into discussions.
These non-RS and non-mainstream sources have already been discussed above. A search for any double quotation term is going to find titles even fringe ones, that does not mean we will streamline those fringe views here on wiki projects. Gotitbro (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed? You collectively labeled all the sources as self-published and non-reliable without really looking into them. The only one we've actually discussed so far (and still are discussing) is Mukhtar's work. Shouldn't we analyze each source individually? That's what a discussion should be. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the actual issue is about individual sources. In either case, what I am seeing here is the cherry-picking of sources to support a comparatively minority view that has not gained traction among mainstream research and literature. See en:WP:UNDUE. The real issue is about the anachronistic editing, and I haven't seen a response or acknowledgement yet regarding my questions about the Pakistani monarchy categorizations. Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention isn’t to push a minority view. I wrote an article the ancient history of "Pakistan" focusing on the geographic region. I used the term "Ancient Pakistan" because I noticed it had traction in academic circles (at least in some). Regarding the Pakistani monarchy categorization, I apologize if my earlier responses didn’t fully address it. Categorizing monarchs based on the regions they ruled—whether Indus Valley, Gandhara, or Punjab—has historical relevance and gives a more accurate framework. These regions are now part of modern Pakistan, so the idea of "Pakistani monarchs" is about grouping rulers by the territory that now constitutes Pakistan, not implying they had a modern identity. Of course, using the term Pakistani monarch back then wouldn’t have made sense, but the same applies to terms like "Chinese monarchs" or "Indian monarchs". Also, we do have "Pakistani monarchs," like the rulers of the princely states and kingdoms? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is your own OR and SYNTH justification for anachronism none of which is not supported by any RS. The existence of other extant stuff is not going vindicate the attempts being made here. Roman and Byzantine emperors are not categorized as Italian or Turkish either and Mughal emperors and the like are also not going to be labelled under anachronistic demonyms and labels. Modern territory-related anachronisms based on personal analysis are not accepted on any wiki project and are not going especially excepted here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no collective labelling, the merit and demerit of every source has been individually given. The only RS of merit within all of them were Allchin and Forgotten Cities on the Indus (which do not support your anachronism at all) and Meister (which does not even use the term beyond its choice of book title). We should not be going around in circles discussing every fringe source and view that exists on the internet or has managed to get self-published. Even if a trawling of the internet leads to some sources here and there that would still not impute mainstream scholarship which obviously does not support this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While planets may have a lot of patience, mine is running out.
What should we call it then? You said yourself Indus Valley is not a replacement for this so-called "anachronism". We can't call it Ancient India, that would also be very wrong, like calling something in Mongolia "Chinese". 🪐●Haumeon 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit perplexed about the complaint above regarding losing patience - were you involved in the controversial edits? I maintain that anachronistic edits are taking place, and what specifically is the "it" you are referring to? In either case, I am quite sure "South Asia" is a widely accepted term. Chenzw  Talk  01:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not losing patience here. Instead, there was an ultra-heated debate going on at ANI where this user requested Cyber.Eyes to be banned for this. 🪐●Haumeon 02:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • En-wiki does not have any instance of using ancient Pakistan, in any article.--(Please find/show the link to their discussion, that lead to that decision.

    I am now suggesting a rename title of (article) Ancient Pakistan.--For now, I am supporting "renaming away from" Ancient Pakistan. (Renaming, Simple-wiki's article, in other words.) 2001:2020:32D:D689:8D1E:C4BD:EBCA:32EA (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:32D:D689:8D1E:C4BD:EBCA:32EA (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess so. We can move Ancient Pakistan to another title (what should that be?) and all the other pages that refer to ancient Pakistan. We can maybe rename the categories to South Asia instead. 🪐●Haumeon 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the existing articles on similar topics, I think "Ancient History of Pakistan" would be the most fitting title, similar to en:Ancient history of Afghanistan, en:Ancient history of Cyprus, and en:Ancient history of Yemen. Also, Renaming the cats under South Asia seems reasonable, but it would cover a broader area now. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 17:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, true. Maybe "Ancient history of Pakistan"? (fixed capitalization). Maybe renaming the cats to "Indus Valley"? 🪐●Haumeon 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, renaming the century cats from Pakistan to Indus Valley would be a good move. It would at least avoid any concerns about being anachronistic. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indus Valley isn't a coherent historical region/terminology either (and no wiki categorizes regions as such) and a discussion between a subset of two users does not really count as a consensus to go ahead renaming and repopulating contested categories and content. It would appear on the face of it yet another attempt of what exactly is being questioned here i.e. an anachronistic projection of modern territories to ascribe historicity within them and to circumscribe moden regions onto them. Gotitbro (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd tag your comment with {{complex}} if I could. Many simple english wikipedians can't read this without spending hours in dictionaries.
    Anachronistic projection of modern territories? Probably not, but I see your point. Either way, what else to rename these articles and cats to? South Asia seems too broad, and renaming to India would be even more controversial. 🪐●Haumeon 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I wasn't clear, in brief that was to say that we should not have any 'anachronistic region' based categories (Note: enwiki does not recognize Indus Valley as a well defined region beyond the meaning of the river, nor do most sources specializing in South Asia). Moreover we do not categorize regions by centuries etc. even if it was a well understood region.
    In our case then categories such as "History of Pakistan" and the like should suffice, or if we are to be more specific to actual regions such as "History of Punjab" or History of Sindh" etc. Gotitbro (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sections of "History of Pakistan" (article at En-wiki):
    I agree, that sounds fine. 🪐●Haumeon 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agenda-pushing going on (in wiki-article) History of Pakistan? Well, i have moved some stuff (to Talk-page): diff

    simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=9761587&oldid=9761075
    .--If the removed stuff, was not good enough for that article, then please help keep out (the not good-enough stuff). 2001:2020:335:83AE:C859:E30B:5E26:30F3 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change topic code

[change source]

change topic code 166.181.82.179 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you want. 142.54.84.29 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Stewart

[change source]

Can I request protection for this? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would've been better requested at WP:AN, but I'm going to decline this one. It's easier to keep track of the sockpuppeteer this way. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga What do you mean 'keep track of the sockpuppeteer'? Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme If the target article is left unprotected, it's easier to monitor it because the sockpuppeteer doesn't tend to go anywhere else. That's all I can say. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fehufanga But its proxies now Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 12:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme Then report the IPs to m:SRG and revert the edits if they haven't reverted it themselves.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 13:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but still don't get the point of waiting for people to vandalise it. Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme en:Honeypot (computing). That's the end of this conversation unless an admin wants to protect it. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 06:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ether

[change source]

"Ether" should maybe be about the Functional group (chemistry). (See topic at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether .)

But maybe only if there is somewhat simple title, that fits for the ether which is known to grammar-school students and elementary-school students; Something sort of like, uh, "Ether (painkilling chemical)".

"Ether (functional group)", as a title, that might alienate Chemists (or only make them shake their heads).

Please make a decision (and thereafter i expect to make a stub /substub).--Also, on the face of things, "Ether" has seemingly no "practical use" in my everyday life, so I am fine if "Ether" becomes a disambig-page. 2001:2020:32D:D689:C4CA:7FF1:76CF:C20C (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust

[change source]

I think Nazi ghettos is quite short and could be merged with Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust, which an editor has been working on recently. However, should there be a standalone list or should that be included within the main article for the topic? 2607:F140:6000:806A:C138:1965:393B:D295 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany, is English-wiki's article. The name is spot-on.--(En-wiki has one article.)--We have two articles (but they should be one).--It does not matter which name you choose (for now), because i expect to have a surprise (after a merge).--Now, if there were 'non-Nazi ghettos in Europe' during say, 1940-1945, then there is one title that maybe should not be the 'merge title'.--Good luck (and see ya after 'the' merge), cuz i'll be fixing other articles. 2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons gadgets

[change source]

Somehow both Wikipedia:HotCat and commons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot are not working for me. They’re both Commons gadgets, Wikimedia Commons itself doesn’t seem to work for me—I can only access it when using a VPN. However, as per Wikipedia’s policies, we can’t edit with proxies. Is anyone else experiencing this issue, and does anyone know how to fix it? It seems like Commons might be blocked in my region; is there a known ban? – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 14:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine in Italy [3] ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, there are probably some restrictions in my region, I think. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 09:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyber.Eyes.2005: I don't know why there would be geographical restrictions on the gadgets. The best place to ask would probably be wherever the support for them is -- maybe somewhere on MediaWiki?
The only things I've ever noticed is that certain Cat-a-lot functions don't work here the way they do on Commons. I can do everything from a category page, but Cat-a-lot is also supposed to work from other pages, such as from search results, but that hasn't worked for me. I've assumed that we don't have all the "pieces" here, but I don't really know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, these two tools don’t work at all; like they don’t even show up. But as soon as I enable a VPN, they appear and "seemingly" start working. However, I can’t edit with them because proxies are restricted from editing on Wikipedia. Also, thanks for the suggestion, I’ll see if I can ask about it on MediaWiki. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 10:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS namespace transition

[change source]

Hello -- as part of phab:T363538 and as announced in Tech News this week, the MOS namespace was added to simplewiki this morning. The output of the title migration script can be found at phab:T363538#10134219. The follow pages were moved:

(You can find these with https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=T363538&namespace=126 and https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Broken%2F&namespace=0 )

Please review these pages and fix any broken links.

CAnanian (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest deleting MOS:T363538/ and using WP:MOS instead. 2601:644:9083:5730:6127:1AEC:2FE5:C06C (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone 16

[change source]

Excuse me, can someone move the page from IPhone 16 to iPhone 16? 2001:569:7C55:9000:C887:AE3E:5452:1E8A (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :D to start a title with a lowercase letter add {{lowercase title}} ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 02:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Lee

[change source]

Hi all, I will be working on this page for a few days in hopes that I can bring it to GA. There is a lot of work to be done like dealing with the red links, and some more simplification in the lower sections. Any advice and help will be much appreciated. Further about the page can be discussed on the talk page. I will be watching the page so I will try to reply to the comments as quickly as possible. BRP ever 16:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on proposed change to a QD option

[change source]

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed change to option T2. Please read and give your views. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book error

[change source]

Hi, Over at East Lancs Greenway I've added access dates to the 2 books however in doing so it now brings up a "Check date values in: |access-date=" error, I've reread Help:CS1_errors#bad_date about 10 times and I still can't figure out what or where the issue us?,

Apologies in advance if I've missed something glaringly obvious I've only had 5 hours sleep, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010 I don't understand character encodings, but there are hidden characters just before the closing brackets in both of these citations. If you remove those characters and just type in "2024}}", the errors go away. 2601:644:9083:5730:5DEE:7211:EF2B:6CC1 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:644:9083:5730:5DEE:7211:EF2B:6CC1, You are amazing thank you so much!, Never even thought of that so thank you for your help it's very much greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 23:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding languages

[change source]

It used to be easy to connect to other Wikipedias with the same article. Things have changed, and I can't see how to do it. Our Ichkabal article should be linked to the Spanish Wikipedia's article on it. Kdammers (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies on interlanguage-linking just yet, but I think you shouldn't link an article to other Wikipedias just because it is remotely related (through countries, for example). It's like linking to enwiki, that is looked down upon. 🪐●Haumeon 05:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We no longer link inter-language wikis by adding Interwikis at the bottom of the page—that was the old method. Now, we connect pages directly through Wikidata. You'll need to create an entry there and link the same articles across different Wikipedias. If you provide me with the link to the Spanish Wikipedia article for Ichkabal, I can link them both for you. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Kdammers is pointing out is that adding interwiki links (via Wikidata) is indeed much harder in the Vector 2022 skin than the Vector Legacy (2010) skin. On the Vector Legacy skin, there is a pencil icon which you can click and simply enter the language code and the title of the page you want to connect to. If that page is already connected to a Wikidata item, it adds the simplewiki link; if not, it creates a Wikidata item with both pages. On Vector 2022, as far as I can tell, you have to go to the Wikidata page to do this. I use Vector Legacy for this reason. I have no idea why the developers didn't make this process easier. Batrachoseps (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you email or contact MediaWiki/the developers to fix this? 🪐●Haumeon 05:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Batrachoseps I see, I’ve been using the Vector 2022 skin from the start and didn’t realize that. With Vector 2022, you don’t actually have to go to Wikidata to link pages if you're on a PC/desktop. On the right side in the Tools bar, there’s an “edit interlanguage links” option. If you click on that, the process I believe is similar to Vector Legacy (2010)—you just add the language code and page title, and it connects them. If the page doesn’t exist, it creates an entry on Wikidata. – Cyber.Eyes.2005Talk 05:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyber.Eyes.2005 I see, it's the "edit interlanguage links" in the sidebar. I had assumed it was the "add languages" at the top of the page that appears when the page isn't connected to other language versions. When I couldn't add the links there, I didn't think of looking elsewhere. Thanks for the tip! Batrachoseps (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To change your skin, go to Special:Preferences and then the "Appearance" tab. Batrachoseps (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=9768007"