Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Pages with references need reference sections[change source]

When you create a page that has references, or add a reference to a page that didn't have any before, please make sure that there is a reference section. This is usually done with the heading ==References== and the {{reflist}} template. If you don't include the section, the references still appear on the page, but not in the right way and sometimes not in the right place.

If you'd like to see a list of pages that are missing a references section, you can look here. If you fix any of the articles listed there, please mark them as done by clicking on "done" for the page. Note that sometimes there are false positives in that list because the software doesn't recognize all the ways that reference sections are coded. If you find any false positives, you can change them to a standard format just so that they stop appearing in the list. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been slowly going through some of this. As always, I am a bit rusty so if you see me make a mistake feel free to correct me and let me know. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 04:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be hard to get it wrong, as long as the section is placed correctly (after related pages, before other websites). One thing: it would be great if you can leave a blank line before the heading line. If it's too much trouble, though, getting the heading and template in there is more important. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gordonrox24: If you are working from the Check Wikipedia page that I linked, please be sure to mark pages as done after you fix them. I was just looking at these, and I found some changed ones still in the list. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Strange, pretty sure I was clicking that. May have missed a few. Thanks. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox London station[change source]

Template:Infobox London station has errors. When you set the Symbol parameter as rail, it displays a redlink instead of the national rail symbol. Strangely enough, when I click on the redlink, it goes to the Wikimedia Commons upload wizard. So if I set the parameter as | Symbol = rail, it goes to this link. Is there anything wrong with this template? If you go to a article related to a National Rail station (e.g London Bridge station), it displays 12px in red. When you click on this, it redirects to the upload wizard in Wikimedia Commons. Is there anything wrong with the template? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I am working on that. There was an issue on commons. Its being looked at. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to have been deleted at [1] as a copyright violation. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that wasn't really the issue, but yes basically we can't use that image because its on en.wiki not commons. I have been working for a few weeks to see if that is true. But it looks like it will be just easier to remove it from the template here. I added it when I updated the template so I removed it again. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mergefrom template display problem[change source]

Going by the samples on Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages, I applied the mergeto template on Gypsy culture successfully, but the mergefrom template on Roma people doesn't display the link properly. How to fix this? -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: Done. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 20:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cite encyclopedia[change source]

Is there a particular reason that we link to the date articles in the access date parameters? Nunabas (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you seeing something like this:
accessdate = [[January 27]], [[2018]]
It used to be standard to link dates like that (something about software seeing it and formatting the dates), but it's no longer needed in most cases. Those links can be removed from accessdate parameters, and from most other places in articles. I have AWB set up to unlink them automatically, for example, and I routinely unlink them in most articles I work on. The main place we still keep them is in articles like January 27.
If this isn't what you were referring to, please give an example. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The template itself is creating the links from the passed parameters. I did not want to change the template without asking first. Nunabas (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Let me know if things don't look right. You might have to refresh pages to see the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
That worked, and I was going to do that but was unsure if it was too bold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunabas (talkcontribs) 11:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Was actually on my list of templates to bring up to date. It is now up to date with Lua. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Africa needs cleanup[change source]

I just happened to create the article on Bushmen (or San people), which I added to Category:Ethnic groups in Africa. It probably belongs there. The problem is with the category, though: We find Category Austronesian peoples, with the Malays (nothing at all to do with Africa). We also find the category African Jews. In short, being an African Jew has nothing to do with belonging to Bantu, or Zulu, or San people. I would therefore propose to not list the Categories African Jews, and Semitic peoples in the category. --Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, one option would be to split into People from Africa (for reallive people born in Africa, or having strong ties to Africa); there we could also put the Jews/Semitic people, and the Ethnic groups, which would only hold ethnicities, and not people (and therefore: no Semitic people/Jews) in that group. --Eptalon (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, Malay peoples and Austronesian peoples are not ethnic groups in Africa, that's clear. When "Ethnic groups" is translated to "Ethnolinguistitic groups", then semitic languages are present in Africa, and may have been for a long time. Worth noting that Africa has more genetic diversity than all the rest of humanity put together (this has been known for about thirty years). The main problem I see is that language and political boundaries tend to label groups irrespective of any objective science. En's Demographics of Africa is a good place to look for info.
There are a substantial amount of Malays in South Africa and have contributed to the Coloured people there. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Separately, you have not noticed that we already have a page on the Khoisan. Please read that before going further. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I added the little info of the San article to the Koisan article, and made one redirect to the other. --Eptalon (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Apropos the Jews - there's a huge historical difference between the Jewish communities of North Africa (the Maghreb), Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia, distinct from those who migrated to sub-Saharan Africa in recent centuries. See en:History of the Jews in Africa, which looks like a fine candidate for a Simple English version and then its inclusion in whichever demographic/ethnic category applies. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Even then: You may be Tutsi, Hutu, or Berber; which is probably independent of being Jewish (or Muslim, or Christian). So, the Semitic people/Jewish people do not fit the category well; And yes, Fully agree, Jewish (or Islamic) culture in North Africa is probably quite different from that in Central/Southern parts of Africa.--Eptalon (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

How to complain on Wikipedia[change source]

I have a question, can somebody help, to suggest how to complain in a formal way on a Wikipedia page, the page contains misleading information about a person alive.SandY181 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@SandY181: Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. You can post something on the article's talk page, but the best remedy for misleading or incorrect information is to fix the information and include references for the correct information. Articles here are created collaboratively: there's no one in charge overall to complain to about article content. If you'd like to be more specific about your concerns, someone might be able to help you better. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of quick delete option WP:QD#G7 (author wants deletion)[change source]

First, here is the description of this option (italics mine):

Author wants deletion. Any page whose original author wants deletion, can be quickly deleted, but only if most of the page was written by that author and was created as a mistake. If the author blanks the page, this can mean that he or she wants it deleted.

Notes:

  • This option only applies if the page was created by mistake. I keep seeing pages where an author creates an article that looks reasonably good, then blanks it, then another editor tags it for QD under G7.
  • The description says that blanking can mean that an author wants a page deleted, not that it automatically means that.

First, I think that G7 requests should usually be made only by the creating editor. Second, many of these articles, even if blanked by the creator, were not created by mistake, and therefore don't qualify for this option. If you see an article that was blanked by its creator, it might be better to just unblank it, and possibly request QD under a different option if there's one that applies.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

If the author wants deletion, anfd shows this, by blanking; we delete. For most pages, re-creating with new content is simple. As to someone else noticing a blank page, and tagging it with G7 , or no cotent, or similar; thats just putting up the flag: look this page needs deletion. --Eptalon (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, if someone nominates a page QD under G7, it should only be done if the author is the only user who has contributed to the page. If anyone else has worked on it, G7 should be rejected and it should be referred to RFD. Once other users have added to the work, blanking it is then vandalism. I don't know how you can create a page "by mistake". The only concievable way I think is if you misspell the title, or need to reword it, then it's a case to move the page, not delete it. DaneGeld (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but the rule is that "most of the page was written by that author". Other ways one could create a page by mistake are creating it here instead of on enwiki, doing a move where something goes haywire, or accidentally saving when you were just testing something (I've done that). Not saying those happen often, though. Maybe some tweaking is needed for this rule. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't quantify what a mistake is (it is usually taken to mean anything they created they didn't like after creating it), in their opinion it might have been a mistake so really if they blank it and they are the only true "content" editor of the page it gets deleted. Someone just adding a template to a page that is later blanked wouldn't not stop a deletion for example. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I should note, using the word mistake is just a bad simplification of the en.wiki version. If you look at the en.wiki version, it is anything mistake or not that the only substantial editor blanked. See: "If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.[4]) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page, a category page, or any type of talk page, this can be taken as a deletion request." -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Module errors[change source]

Someone must have changed something in a module or template somewhere, because all I see now are module errors in {{reflist}}. For example, in The Hateful Eight, I see: "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3398: bad argument #1 to 'ipairs' (table expected, got nil)." That should be a citation to afi.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been seeing that error on pretty much all pages here, since this morning. I tried to look and I couldn't see any changes, regarding any of the citation templates, and/or the module. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 Fixed: {@NinjaRobotPirate: I solved the issue, apparently that error message was kind of misleading. But thankfully thanks to the {{Cite encyclopedia}} template, I was able to narrow it down to the actual offending Module being Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities, which an anon vandalized one line. Which caused all of this problems. Though I thought modules were protected against anon users from creating them or modifying them and only allowed autoconfirmed users. I could be wrong however. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Clarkcj12: Thanks! I just permanently semiprotected that module. We might want to do the same with any others that are "highly visible" like that one, although some folks might want to discuss whether we should. In the meantime, if anyone wants to point me to a place where I can learn Lua for free, I'd appreciate it. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: I just permanently semiprotected the main module and the other submodules of the citation module. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion (permalink as of today) on en.wiki about semi-protecting template space because of persistent vandalism. Unfortunately, I never really bothered to learn Lua, though I guess I probably should. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I typically protect the high use ones. But I haven't been on the bunch I have imported lately. I will update when I get time the new templates/modules I have imported/updated that are high use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Image churn[change source]

I've been seeing a lot of edits that are just changing images back and forth, almost as if someone is trying to increase their edit count. It seems to me that image selection criteria should be that the image shows the subject well and is as recent as possible (at least where that makes sense, as with living people). Has anyone else seen this? If/when we get our infoboxes sufficiently tied to Wikidata, maybe we can just use the designated image from there instead of hardcoding images in infoboxes. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really seen it. I do try to use the most recent, however, really the best image should be used so that isn't always the most recent. To be honest when it comes to pictures I hope we don't just use the wikidata ones because I find I like having the variety alot of the times compared to the ones on en. Not that I don't use the same as them often as well. -DJSasso (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen it really, the only time I really use images is when copying over an infobox from en.wiki. Sometimes I remove an image already on the page because its already in the infobox to prevent a duplicate image. Also sometimes I remove it because adding an infobox and the current layout of the article having image could pose accessibility problems. And make the article harder to read. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
What I'm talking about is a single editor changing the image in an infobox back and forth. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia help writing[change source]

Hi. I want to make draft articles at User:LauraHale/2018 Winter Paralympics. I would like to put them in the main space before the Games. I just have not written much on Simple English Wikipedia. Once I start writing, is there an administrator who could look at the drafts to make sure I have written them using Simple English? The last time I wrote a lot on Simple English, I had a problem of using making them too difficult or making long sentences to write information using simpler wording. --LauraHale (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Laura. Welcome back to Simple English Wikipedia. If you need an administrator, you could ask at WP:AN, but I don't think you need an admin for this. You just need someone who is reasonably good at writing in simple language.
Your list is pretty long, so it might be hard to have them all checked before the Games. (I'm assuming they will be held right after the Olympic Games that just started: is that right?) Maybe you could write a couple as a sample of what you have in mind. Then someone could comment on those, and you could take those comments into account when creating the others. How does that sound? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help, @LauraHale:. When do you think you'll finish? hiàn 02:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have not started yet. I just did not want to make a lot of work that needed to be fixed because of writing issues. The articles should be pretty short. If it was going to be an problem, I wanted to know as not a big deal but I would not spend a lot of time on it. --LauraHale (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Auntof6:, User:LauraHale/United States of America at the 2018 Winter Paralympics is a first draft of what I will probably add before the start of the Games. Does that look okay? --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@LauraHale: May I make a few changes that I think would simplify it? It also needs a bit of copy editing. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6:, Please do. I will look at your edits afterwards to model other articles after them. I am also unsure sometimes what to put. Because few articles exist for most sportspeople, I want to add basic biography information to some sport specific sections. It seems better than creating a short article, where I would have to show people are notable. --LauraHale (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I made some changes. There are one or two places that I think could be worded better: I'll give you detail on them later, but for now here are a couple of comments about some of the changes I made:
  • I changed "United States of America" to just "United States" because the full name is usually not used.
  • In one place, I divided a sentence not only to make shorter sentences, but also to reword it so that the date wasn't at the start of the sentence. (Sentences shouldn't start with digits, so since you're using dmy dates they can't go at the beginning.)
  • Speaking of date formats, since this article is about a US topic, it should probably use dmy dates.)
That's all for now. Do you have any questions about what I changed? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Forgot about dates as they are about the USA. Did not realize sentences should not start with numbers. The edits all make sense. Your advice was very helpful. :) I hope this time editing, I do a much better job than I did in the past. I had modeled the first sentence after Denmark at the 1972 Summer Paralympics. I will change the first sentence wording on the rest of the articles too. Thank you very much for your help. :) I hope I don't need it as much with the rest of the articles I am writing. :) --LauraHale (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also North Korea is probably close to being done and ready for the main space. There is not much more information that can be added before the Games start. --LauraHale (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Caucasian[change source]

I'm looking to disambiguate pages linking to Caucasian. The two most appropriate links would be either Caucasian race or White people. Which link would be most appropriate to use and what are the differences between the two? --Eurodyne (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eurodyne: Not all Caucasians are white—e.g. Indians. These historical racial categories are not entirely accurate or even intelligible sometimes but Indo-Aryan peoples are descended from northern India and so the racial and ethnic theories from the 19th century that lead to terms like "Caucasians" and "white people" include Middle Easterners and South Asians who have some very dark skin tones as well as some light-skinned peoples who are geographically nowhere near the Caucasus mountains. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Even though it is probably widely used, the term is highly problematic because of its racist connotations. --Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

PAge needing cleanup..[change source]

Hello all, this morning I found the page Simon the Canaean. This page has a big problem of lacking sources (Yes, there are biblical ones). Simon Zelotes (whom we are talking about here) looks like one of the more obscure personalities of scripture; for this reason, adding real sources would probably be great. Thanks for helping. --Eptalon (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Section headings in WP:Guide to layout[change source]

I'd appreciate input on my query posted at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Other optional section headings. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Compound sentences and other style guidelines[change source]

I was reading Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. One piece of advice is to use few compound sentences. I have been diligently trying to do that. I have also been reading articles on Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples to model my writing after. A lot of the articles use lots of compound sentences, and words that do not look that simple. Is there any advice on how to do this particular aspect of writing well? --LauraHale (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many of the articles here are not written simply enough. There are different reasons for that. Some article creators are not sufficiently familiar with how to write simply. Some don't understand what this wiki is supposed to be about, and write what they think is simple. Some articles get copied directly from English Wikipedia (or translated directly from other languages) without being simplified: we deal with those when we catch them, but we don't catch them all. Even some of our good and very good articles aren't as simple as they could be. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I am feeling like a bit of a disaster with doing tables. The first use is supposed to be linked? Does that apply for the lead, but not the body? Or does the time in the lead not count? What about tables? Can I link multiple times in a table? Are red links a good thing or a bad thing? --LauraHale (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
We had a recent discussion about linking. You can find it at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_121#Which_to_link?. There is actually a guideline against links in section headings. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
What are the rules for capitalizing in tables? Should "male" be capitalized if it is the only thing in the cell? I can fix a lot of the problems I am creating. I just don't always feel familiar with how things should be written. There are fewer people who are randomly going to clean up my bad writing and formatting on Simple English Wikipedia. I would rather do it right the first time.--LauraHale (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
How do I deal with events that occur in the future? I keep writing them in the past tense, but that seems wrong. I've switched to the present tense but I am not sure that is any better.  :( It's been a bit since I have done a lot of serious editing on Wikipedia of this kind and just overwhelmed with the desire to do things right, fear of messing up and creating lots of work for admins. I really want to get the articles I am working on into a good place because I love the topic. --LauraHale (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello LAuraHale;what I am telling you now is not necessarily in the manual of style, but also useful: Links in section headings look awful, and should (in my opinion) be avoided. The same applies to the heading rows of tables. As to compound sentences: When you use them, it is (in my opinion) important that the two parts of the ompound belong together. Also, an article should be easy to understand. This does not necessarily imply that you avoid compund sentences, or that you don't use the shorter form of the negation; it is more about thinking about the audience: There is a fire extinguisher, so extinguishing a fire is probably easier to understand than putting out a fire (Don't you also put out the trash once a week?). As to capitalization, follow whatever rule you like, but try to always do it the same way. From what I see I would more expect it to be lowercase, than uppercase (it is one attribute of an athlete, along with weight, age, and height). Making it uppercase in a table cell might give it more weight, which it probably does not need. --Eptalon (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The MOS says no links in headings. I think it's an accessibility issue. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Be careful writing about future events. In some cases, you can word them in a way that works both before and after the event. Can you give an example of an article where this was/is an issue? Also, keep in mind that admins are not the only people who can help with this, or who evaluate new articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
English has a clear rule about capitalisation, which is: apart from the first word in a sentence, only proper nouns take upper case [=are spelt with a capital letter]. In French even fewer capitals are used: they write "musée d'Orsay" where we write "Museum of London". You can see I'm right by going to the French page from our (incorrect) page. In German, every noun takes upper case (is capitalised). For comprehension, see our readability. I knew the world's leading expert on this topic, and can guarantee its soundness! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
But when writing a paper, some style guides have you capitalizing most words in section headings. Others have you only capitalizing the first word. Some do not use periods ever in sentences. Some use periods when you get to heading level 3. The rules get confusing in non-standard use cases. The style guide does not say much about capitalization in tables. I did not recall seeing anything about headings. I have removed some of the capital letters for generic use words in the tables, and trying to make sure I do first letter of the first word capitalized in headers unless there is a proper noun. --LauraHale (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If the rule gets confusing after a time, do what you think is right; most of us are pragmatics, having a well-written article, that doesn't follow all rules to the letter is better than having a badly written one that is rule-compliant. --Eptalon (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • WP housetyle guidelines for titles, sections and subsections are as follows:
"A mixed-case style in which the first word of the sentence is capitalised, as well as proper nouns and other words as required by a more specific rule. This is generally equivalent to the baseline universal standard of formal English orthography". Basically, this says the only words with upper case (capital) initials are the first word and any proper nouns. We follow these WP guidelines.
Example given: "Section headings follow the same guidance as article titles (above), and should be presented in sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects) not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

IP user returns to vandalism after block expired[change source]

Finding and undoing this recent vandalism on Israel by this IP user, I saw so much related activity on User talk:85.119.104.126 for last month and this - I didn't know what action is appropriate at this point. And - for that matter, I didn't know whether this is the right place to bring it to Admins' attention, vs. where? -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deborahjay. An administrator has now blocked the IP for a week. The best place to bring up these problems in future is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. That IP pulled the same appalling behaviour at English Wikipedia and has been on six month block since 14 September 2017 [2]. The IP was recently blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for two years [3]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)