Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Action: Change the languages on the Log in page[change source]

In December and January we had a discussion about Proposal: Change the languages on the Log in page. There was a pretty clear consensus to change, with some details of exactly which languages to include. Then, it dropped of the Simple Talk page. Probably just an automated time limit thing? Anyway, the hold up seemed to be that very few people have the permissions to make the change. I would help out of I could, but I can't. Can this be put in place? Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The change is easy and can be done in a second. The deciding on the languages is the hard part as Chenzw mentions near the end of that discussion there is no consensus on which languages to include. -Djsasso (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Gotanda's suggestions seemed fair to me, in my opinion. I agree the current languages are not ideal for a world audience. --IWI (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Gotanda's list at the end. I think the most important languages are English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Russian, and Hindi. Naddruf (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Chinese Traditional or Simplified? I'm assuming by Chinese it means Mandarin? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about Traditional or Simplified, but aren't the different varieties of Chinese written the same? Naddruf (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not too sure, I would imagine they would be very similar. I can only speak Cantonese, but listening to Mandrain is way different than Cantonese. Just to give some contex, for Japanese Chinese characters (Kanji), they are read differently than regular Chinese, but have the same characters. Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion stopped last time as the topic was moved / fell off Simple Talk into the archives. Over the past and current discussion, it seems we have a general consensus on this from many people, but つがる makes a good point about Chinese and we should probably include both to avoid prioritizing one over the other, so that gets us to something like this:
عربى | 中文 (正體字) (简化字) | English | español | français | हिन्दी | Indonesian | русский | Swahili.
Is that OK to go ahead with? Or, anything else to be changed? Thanks all. It's just a login page. People may login on another wiki. But for first time visitors, I think something like this shows a more welcoming face than Esperanto etc.--Gotanda (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gotanda: I support the above suggestion. --IWI (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Support The above is good. --Belwine (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I have to ask why Indonesian? That does not seem like its on the same level as the others and seems to put an over emphasis on that region by having four asian-based languages (five if you count russia)? Seems like it puts us in the opposite problem of being too asia centric instead of too euro centric. English, Spanish and French while starting in Europe are the main languages for countries around the world not just Europe whereas I can't say the same for Indonesian. I would probably drop both Indonesian and Russian. -Djsasso (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Djsasso --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

With just under 200 million speakers and then with roughly mutual intelligibility for most Malaysians for this purpose that makes about 230 million. Four European languages (English, Spanish, French, and Russian) and three/four Asian (Chinese (two scripts) Hindi, Indonesian) seemed not out of line. Africa is relatively lightly represented with Swahili and to some extent Arabic but is also covered by the colonial languages. That was the thinking there. If it has to go, it has to go. If it stays, I guess it should also be localized to Bahasa Indonesia. Too bad this conversation stopped when it was pulled off Simple Talk in the first place. My priority for this proposal was to make the login more inclusive and get rid of the current design which seems more than a little odd and doesn't represent us well. --Gotanda (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I would never be without German, which is one of the two most important languages of science & technology, and is almost the lingua franca of east and central Europe. Don't forget that Arabic covers north Africa pretty well, while none of the native African languages do the job at all well. English (and sometimes Arabic) is the lingua franca of countries below the the northern coast. The argument against such languages as Malaysian is that they have no reach, and virtually no international use. You can't judge these things by population of the country of origin alone. Hindi is probably a better international language than Mandarin. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me for coming in a second time. I think we should do more than I suggested above. We should consider listing each language in English, not in its own script and language. Many will not know that Cymraeg is Welsh, that Gaeilge is Irish, Scots is just a dialect of English, that Ido is goodness what, but not a regular language, that the oriental script is not just Chinese, but Mandarin... and so on. Not only should we cut out some of the nonsense, but list properly in English the links to the world's greatest languages. If that language uses a different script then that can be added in brackets. There really is no upside to listing in scripts which most of out readers cannot decode. Improving the usability of this side-list is important. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If you mean the interwiki links, they are written in their own language so that people who actually can read those languages can find the link to the language they understand. It is important they are in their own language to help users that actually need those languages and can't read English and for some reason ended up on our pages. People who can't understand those languages probably don't need to know what they are links too because they won't go there anyway. -Djsasso (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross makes a good point as well. How many speakers in a given country is somewhat irrelevant if the languages have little to no reach beyond their own borders which is why I suggested on going with the lingua franca from the countries our stats say our visitors are coming from because those choices would actually be helpful to our readers as opposed to just looking like we are trying to be broad based. As for why the login page is the way it is, what we have is just the default languages from the WMF, they were not chosen specifically for simple. Not sure why they are what the WMF chose for the default but they are. Esperanto I assume is included because it is intended to be the cross-language language but other than that no idea. -Djsasso (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get that transborder reach is more important; having a very large number of speakers in just one or two countries is important enough. I would like to ask you to reconsider this, dj, "just looking like we are trying to be broad based." I have not proposed this for appearances sake. We should be broad based. I think that the languages presented at the login matter. And, that a better selection makes the site more welcoming, more accessible, and more inline with larger Wikipedia goals. As far as number of visitors from country by IP goes, I think that is less useful for reasons I have already outlined in the previous discussion: one, country/ip address does not equate to language of the user; two, just counting the current users is a feedback loop--it's a bit like looking for your dropped keys under lamp post. Making the login more immediately appealing to a greater variety of people may help us get beyond our current reach rather than just concentrating on it. There can be some changes around the edges of the list, but any of the proposed versions of that list would be better than what we have now. It can always be improved later. --Gotanda (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I think it is substantially more important to be useful to the people actually using the site rather than just trying to look welcoming to people who may possibly come here. I think that is a detriment to the people who are actually coming here which could lead to the shrinking of our userbase due to not being as welcoming to them. This is where the appearances sake comes in, we are just trying to look welcoming for people who may or may not come here while actively being less welcoming to people who do actually come here. But yes, I think the language being transborder is important because it means more countries reached by that language, thus more of the world being covered by that language, rather than a small single country. -Djsasso (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the list of countries with visitors, I think we should definitely add Hindi, because India is the country with the second most visits. I think it's reasonable to keep German, but remove Esperanto, as almost nobody uses it. Also add Russian, because Russia is the non-English speaking country with the most visits (after India). I think we can probably remove Italian, but doing that is not necessary. Even if we don't make all the changes as originally proposed, it would be good if we do this. Assuming, of course, that we keep multiple languages on the Login page. Lights and freedom (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll support this. We seem agreed that at least this should be done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I can get on board with that. -Djsasso (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
DJ and Mac, several users supported my suggestions. You seem to have changed up the list. Can one of you provide what you now think that list should be so that everyone who weighed in before can have a look and see if they still support or oppose? Thanks, -- Gotanda (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Geisha demoted to good article...[change source]

Hello all, the article Geisha was started in 2007. It is one of the oldest articles we have. When we started having Very Good Articles, it was also one of the first articles to get that status. Some time ago, concerns were raised about it rightfully being a very good article, and there are areas which need to be updated. For this reason, I have demoted it to the status of good article. When the issues have all been addressed, we can re-promote the article using the regular process. --Eptalon (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've updated all of the relevant things for a demoted article, including the Wikidata item. Let me know if I missed anything. --IWI (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Don't let us get too hasty about this. Demotion from or promotion to VGA is a big deal, not to be rushed. I can see things which need improvement as it is. The first para alone is badly written. And, checking with En wiki, I can see whole topics left out of our version. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote, it is one of the oldest articles we have, and its age is clearly visible. When it has been worked on, and the editors agree that it is ready, it will go through a regular process. Hanami is an article that has a similar age (also from 2007), it was demoted to good article in 2018. Since then, there were roughly 40 edits to the page. Looking at the actual changes, there were minor (fixing references, some rephrasing). So far, there has been no attempt to re-promote to VGA. Japanese tea ceremony, demoted to regular article in 2008; about 80 revisions since then; also very little change, no attempt at re-promoting the article. As of now, 27 articles have been demoted from VGA. I am not aware of any that have been re-promoted to VGA, after being demoted. So yes, if we take the process seriously, the article will need to go through a regular process, when the community feels it is ready. --Eptalon (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Some joker just added false info about Nutri Ventures – The Quest for the 7 Kingdoms[change source]

The edits on the article for Nutri Ventures – The Quest for the 7 Kingdoms has to be a joke as it looks like it was written on a fanfic site. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd If you believe changes should be made add them on the talk page or just make the edits. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A few formatting questions[change source]

Hi all. I just had a couple of formatting questions that I was hoping somebody might be able to clear up. Firstly, when a navigational box (say {{Cities in France}}) is included on a page that also has an Authority Control template on it, should there be a gap between it and the navigational box or not - I've seen it done both ways and so am interested in what the general consensus is. Secondly, is there any consensus on where stub tags should be placed on pages that have nav boxes + authority control? I've seen it above both of them (ie just below References/Other Websites) but also below. I wasn't sure if there was any definitive guide to that - on the one hand putting it above makes it much easier to see, especially if there is a long infobox on the page, but on the other stub tags typically go right at the bottom of an article. If anyone has any ideas on either question it would be much appreciated. Best, Milo, Talk, Contribs 12:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Stubs are supposed to go after the categories with two spaces between them and the categories, not with the navboxes. Authority control goes after navboxes, no space needed. -Djsasso (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant that's perfect thanks! Milo, Talk, Contribs 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@SpaceGuy32: I know Djsasso answered your immediate question. But I thought I would share a link to en:MOS:ORDER as well. In case you have similar questions about the order of other elements in the future, it is a useful resource. Desertborn (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Desertborn: Oh wonderful that's exactly what I was looking for. Bookmarked for future use! Thanks, Milo, Talk, Contribs 18:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Nickelodeon is looking for new members![change source]

Wikiproject Nickelodeon.png is looking for new members. Join us now!

Link SoyokoAnis - talk 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to wreck your hard work, but just a question of does that banner contain the actual Nickelodeon logo? If so, Is it a copyright violation? I do appreciate the effort you put into the Wikiproject, but the logo needs to be in compliance with Wikipedia Policies. Thank you very much! --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! No it technically does not, if you look at the Nickelodeon in the logo you'll see some of the letters are raised and the font I used allows you to sell, remix, etc it. Thank you, though! SoyokoAnis - talk 04:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Kimono[change source]

Hello. How much more work would need to be put in the Kimono article, before considering for a Good Article status nomination. I would appreciate any feedback you may have on the article Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the article should have a picture of a man in a kimono. Right now they're all women. Lights and freedom (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but we could only find one (see the talkpage), but my concern is, some people might think were 'advertising' Jimmy Wales, because he is the man in the kimono --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Is this one okay? File:Gingetsu Morita in May 2012.jpg Lights and freedom (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I guess it could work. But the man looks like he's in a serious mood. However that is irrelevant to the article itself. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Lights and freedom I added the image to the article --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I also see that there are not a lot of sources, especially in the history section, and men's and women's kimono section. I don't think it could be promoted unless more sources can be added. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is still an Issue. But is the article easy to read? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it is all easy to read. I don't know much about the subject so I don't know if anything is missing, but maybe you could add something about wedding kimono (shiro-muku?), because the English WP article talks about it. Lights and freedom (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Yea, I might need to do that, as some of the content is unsourced, and cannot find any sources for it, so I'll need to remove it, and I'll use the new content to compensate for the size lost from removing the existing information --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello.[change source]

Hi. I would like attention to be brought to this page as it needs heavy workshopping. Thank you.--Derpdart56 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Derpdart56 I just restructured and recreated the entire page. SoyokoAnis - talk 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Twinkle help.[change source]

Is there any way I can view the changes faster than what twinkle does without manually refreshing the page? Darubrub (Let me know) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darubrub: I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to say. Do you want to see diffs as quickly as possible? You should probably use Huggle, if that is what you are asking. --Ferien (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It automatically refreshes the page for you after a few seconds. SoyokoAnis - talk 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I know, but I want a shorter time. Darubrub (Let me know) 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Darubrub Let me see if I can change the refresh time in the preferences. I'll get back to you with information in a few minutes. SoyokoAnis - talk 18:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Darubrub Okay, it currently is not possible to change the refresh time. I am not that good at MediaWiki programming so I can't change it at all. I'm sorry. SoyokoAnis - talk 18:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll just continue manually refreshing. Thank you! Darubrub (Let me know) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem! SoyokoAnis - talk 18:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to manually add RedWarn to this wiki?[change source]

Like it doesn't require interface admins or such?

Will the script work on this wiki? SoyokoAnis - talk 02:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No Redwarn only works for -Djsasso (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Although, JJPMaster did add the script here, with some changes. See User:JJPMaster/RedWarn.js. --Ferien (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Ana Ivanović proposed for demotion..[change source]

Hello all, the article Ana Ivanović is a very good article, but it hasn't been updated in about 6-7 years. For this time, it has a template on top that an update is needed. Since we can't have such templates on very good articles, I have nominated it for demotion. In the last six years, there were about 60 edits to the article, it didn't change much. It looks like it has 50-100 views a month. Anyway, if you feel one way or another, please leave a comment at the proposed article demotion page. --Eptalon (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

monatomic[change source]

In physics and chemistry monatomic is a combination of words. "Mono" means single and monatomic means single atom It is usually applied to gases: a monatomic gas is one in which atoms are not bound to each other. Examples at standard conditions include the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon, though all chemical elements will be monatomic in the gas phase at sufficiently high temperatures. Microbes are monatomic

Sorry, but this is just nonsense. First of all, please sign your edits. Secondly, your content does not need discussion here except to say that microbes are quite certainly not monatomic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Please sign your edits. And what does this have to do with Wikipedia? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross Should I remove as a test edit? SoyokoAnis - talk 13:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Macdonald-ross: The other wiki has an article on en:monatomic gas. Why did you delete this article and say it has little or no meaning? 2601:640:4000:3170:B89F:F50C:6F08:6BFE (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Everything is true there and useful, except that microbes are not monatomic. But then you could just delete those three words instead of deleting the whole article. 2601:640:4000:3170:B89F:F50C:6F08:6BFE (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Daniela Hantuchová is up for discussion at WP:PAD[change source]

Hello. This is to inform of a discussion of the status of the current Very Good Article 'Daniela Hantuchová' at Proposed Article Demotion. Your thoughts are welcome. Thank you very much. Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed should be allowed to create articles[change source]

I can't believe how many articles I have ran into that only have one word. While I know someone told me that stubs like this are allowed that makes me question this rule. This is an encyclopedia and the content should be encyclopedic. And most of these edits are coming from unconfirmed or IP users. This is my opinion and please feel free to place your opinion as well. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we do get a lot of graffitti, so to say. There are many admins, and blocking users who post nonsense all the time is done quite often. Personally, I do not see the need to restrict content creation to autoconfirmed users. Note, that we also have iP editors nominating articles for deletion, and taking part in other commnity processes. The admins have the tools to handle these situations, and there are many admins. Barring new users from creating content is not the solution. Besides: If they can no longer create new articles, they'll probably resort to replacing articles with nonsense/graffitti...--Eptalon (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@SoyokoAnis: We actually had a discussion about something very similar to this on Simple Talk very recently, and it was decided that it is best just leaving things as they are. --Ferien (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Eptalon, @Ferien Oh, okay. Thank you. SoyokoAnis - talk 17:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Many VGAs have issues...[change source]

Hello all, Very good articles are supposed to be the very best articles we have, and can produce. I just went through the listing, and I found that many of them have issues:

  • Red-links, often in transcluded templates
  • "Needs update" (or similar)tag, that has been sitting there, sometimes for years without anything happening.

As an example, the article Anna Kournikova has several red-links to articles, where I am pretty sure we never had them, how was it possible to promote it, with red-links, given that VGAs must not have them? This message is not to discuss individual articles, but to point out that between a third and half of our VGAs have issues; giventheir current state they would not be promoted. Given this finding, I think we should re-think the process. Some ideas:

  • A bot flagging/reportting VGAs with red-links, or with certain templates
  • Time-limiting the "VGA tag" (for example: 2 years, after which it needs to be re-confirmed; the reconfirmation process could be simpler, and needs to be looked at).

I have reported a few VGAs for demotion. I have no idea what state the Good articles are in. On the one hand, people shouldn't be afraid to modify/update such articles, on the other, we need a mechanism of evaluating such updates. Sportspoeple: we get an article about the person at the height of her career; a few years later, he/she retires (fast-paced, too old, etc), but our article does not reflect it, because everyone is afraid of toouching it, for fear of losing the tag. Getting an article to GA or VGA is time-consuming, and we have seen very few articles promoted. So I post this as a wake-up call. Any thoughts?--Eptalon (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What do people think about the idea of excluding biographies of living people from the articles eligible to be promoted to VGA? This may be a bit of an extreme step, however given our difficulty in keeping articles up to date I think it may be worthwhile especially with how sensitive BLPs are. This would allow those who are working on promotion articles to higher standards to focus on writing articles that won't need to be updated every few years in order to maintain their status. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the system of having biography GAs and VGAs is something we may not need, and with which we struggle. A system of GAs would be easier to cope with. VGAs here are probably always going to be on the brink if they are biogs. Yes, we could limit biogs to GA without doing much harm. We all know they are prone to fall, can't be kept up to date and have often been unwisely (but understandably) promoted in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdonald-ross (talkcontribs)
I would say we probably shouldn't limit it because people who like to work on those kinds of articles shouldn't be prevented from "achieving" the recognition of making one. We should just be aware that they can fall behind and need to be removed and then do so. -Djsasso (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Main Page Redesign/Tweaks[change source]

I know this may sound like a weird/Not possible Idea, but could we come up with a 'facelifted' version of the main page, and then gain a consensus to implement the new design? I know this sounds like a hard idea/thing to do, and I'm not sure if this is possible or not? But what are your ideas? Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that would depend on what exactly you'd want changed. I think we've done redesigns before. I personally like to leave well enough alone, but as long as other people do the work I usually don't grouse about it too much. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not major changes per se, just the shape of the boxes, and the font type, and a very small change to the COVID header. Not any major changes, but like a facelift, but if others want to leave it as it is, I am 100% okay with that. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No reason it couldn't be done. I imagine you can view the source of the page, take the content to a sandbox and make the changes you want before presenting it to the community to discuss. Any changes to the main page should be discussed at Talk:Main Page, so the page's entire discussion history remains in one place.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 02:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so should I move this discussion there? Yea, I guess I could take the code and copy it into my userspace, make some changes, and present them. --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally I think we have a nice clean page and don't think it needs any changes, but can't hurt for someone to mock some changes up and get input from the community. The covid header can probably actually be removed at this point, it was only meant to be temporary when the situation was very new. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

COI[change source]

What do I do about this COI? Wa. (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Yaakov Wa.: What is the conflict? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Auntof6,
User claimed to be founder of organization. However, seems to be resolved because user is first going to en-wiki.
Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Values[change source]

Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Welcome[change source]

Template:Welcome links to Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, which has not been updated since 2012. Should this link be removed? Lights and freedom (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Would make sense to me to like it to Special:Wantedpages.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed link. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Should we just turn Wikipedia:Most wanted articles into a redirect at this point? Since it is so old it is not useful in of itself. Desertborn (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I was going to, but decided it should probably be left separate so as not to redirect across namespaces. If a bot gets set up to start updating it again then its there ready to go. Could probably ask Chenzw if he still has to the code to keep it updated. -Djsasso (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Captcha[change source]

Do non-autoconfirmed users (such as IPs) need to complete a captcha before creating a new page? Or does this not exist? Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

According to Special:Captcha, no, this does not exist. --Ferien (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you think this would be useful if enabled, Ferien? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this is definitely something we should consider, it will be useful, especially for some contributors who mass create bad pages. --Ferien (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yea, and it would reduce the amount of traffic, if there are bots creating pages. Creating those geo-stubs are fine, but since it is probably a bot, it is against policy. Also like you mention, it will stop those spam pages. So should I start a proposal here? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Is that something that other Wikipedias already do? If not, it would need to be proposed at Meta, not here. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I honestly don't know, I never used an IP or created a page un autoconfirmed, good catch Auntof6! Would I be able to start the proposal here, and then go to meta once there's consensus? EN Wikipedia does not allow un-autoconfirmed users to create pages, so they'd would have no CAPTCHA --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't. I'd go straight to meta, where you could get input from people who work on many different Wikimedia projects. It might not even be Meta; there might be a separate site for discussing software changes. Having a consensus here wouldn't mean anything if it's only here. Remember that changes to the basic software are done at a higher level than any one Wikipedia. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Would it be beneficial to go to the Test Wikipedia so we can test the changes there? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't know. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"Incorporated" or "Inc." as titles[change source]

I see pages created with titles both formats. Could we not standardise on Inc. and Ltd. as is usual in the press? Maybe we have had this discussion before. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd favor the abbreviation, since that's what you usually see. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
It falls to common name. In some cases the short form is probably what the organization is more often called by, whereas in others the long form is. We shouldn't standardize just to standardize, like anything else we need to follow WP:COMMONNAME. -Djsasso (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page messages[change source]

Our talk page message is large and vulgar. I think it may deter users from sensible use of the talk page. I almost never see any use of the talk page after that notice is put up. We should replace it with a two-line wording which is friendlier to the eye. Indeed we should try and educate users to make constructive suggestions on the talk page, which is rarely done on this wiki. In general, IPs can't make direct changes to En wiki pages, and their talk pages are informative and helpful to the work on the topic page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Which talk page message are you talking about? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The many talk pages where a regular editor has deleted some silly or inappropriate comment. As it looks for this particular page:
... but in general it shows without the archive section. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
That is why these headers are put on the page, they give links on how to appropriately contribute. -Djsasso (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Would the fix here be to have some high level topic specific talk page headers? i.e. History, Sports, Geography, ect. That might make discussions on those topics more likely?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that would just be wasted effort with little benefit. Talk pages aren't used much here because there aren't many editors. Lights and freedom (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this. Really we started adding these to talk pages more often mostly so admins didn't have to keep deleting vandalized talk pages and if I recall correctly we thought it was more welcoming if someone else stumbled onto the talk page than the typical deleted page message. To be honest we likely don't ever need them on this wiki because there is rarely any talk on talk pages. -Djsasso (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I mostly meant that there is no need for topic specific talk page headers. Lights and freedom (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I understand, I was expanding on my thoughts. -Djsasso (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles[change source]

Can someone check the Alutor language and Alutor Numerals articles. I can't make much sense out of them. I think the Numerals article has the wrong title, but I have no idea what's with the Language article... Etoza (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That's strange. It is about Algerian Arabic, but it is titled Alutor Numerals. Darubrub (Let me know) 17:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)