Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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?

Happy New Year 2025!

[change source]

May 2025 bring us a year of useful contributions! Woohoo! Contributor118,784 Let's talk 10:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. LOL Contributor118,784 Let's talk 13:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldrfd and Template:Oldrfdfull

[change source]

Hi, Quick question; do we really need {{Oldrfd}}?,

  • {{Oldrfd}} tells the reader the RFD was closed as keep/delete but doesn't include the nomination date or a link to the discussion
  • {{Oldrfdfull}} (if filled out correctly) tells the reader the RFD was closed as keep/delete, the date it was nominated and a link to the discussion

If Oldrfdfull isn't filled out correctly it shows the exact same message as Oldrfd,

Doesn't make sense why we have 2 RFD talkpage templates but thought I'd ask before sending to RFD, I guess this could be redirected too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Indeed, it seems that the Oldrfd template is unnecessary. I Support the redirect to Oldrfdfull. BZPN (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I guess there's no need to send Oldrfd to a separate RfD - we can discuss it here, because it's probably not a controversial issue. BZPN (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just deprecate oldrfdfull and use the code from oldrfdfull on oldrfd? It won't make a technical difference. If we do that, we should just merge the /doc pages to show a simple way to use the template and the more "complicated" way. Griff (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Griffinofwales, That's actually a really great idea, I would certainly Support deprecating oldrfdfull and using the oldrfdfull for Oldrfd, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for any template deprecation, that will need a lot of cleanup work. I'd just redirect oldrfd to oldrfdfull and call it a day, or do it the otherway around by moving it to oldrfd, it doesn't really matter too much, so long as we have one template in the end with the full functionality with the other being a redirect. --Ferien (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, redirecting the one with less functionality to the other is the solution. No need for cleanup Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a very long-term project of mine is to have RfD discussions linked to on all talk pages of articles kept at RfD, by prefilling all appropriate values. But there is still a long way to go with that project and still a very long way until I intend to finish fixing it! (And this is unrelated to moving oldrfd to oldrfdfull directly) I've just gone back and noticed that {{oldrfd}} actually contains different values to {{oldrfdfull}}, ie oldrfd doesn't need a name parameter to be labelled as such, whereas oldrfdfull does, and oldrfd links to the discussion everytime but in a much easier way. Only 46 transclusions for the old one and these would need to be adjusted. I guess oldrfd can be deprecated but also oldrfdfull does contain some unnecessary information. I can see why both exist, oldrfdfull is the better template but is not always used properly linking to the discussion, hence my project. And I don't think anyone is still actively using oldrfd now, it's just a matter of using oldrfdfull properly. So still leaning towards, but deprecating/redirecting it would require cleanup work that will ultimately make little to no difference to the talk page and only provides the benefit of consistency. --Ferien (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ferien, So sorry to ping you again, Just wanted to ask how does oldrfd link to the discussions ?, the only link they appear to contain is Wikipedia:Deletion policy,
Re your little project; I've been longing for the day where scripted RFD closures are a thing here (same as enwiki) but I know that would never happen given the consensus that admins only should close them but it would be a dream if it could exist nonetheless :), –Davey2010Talk 00:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, yep never mind, of course it can't as it doesn't have the year to get a link! Struck that, thanks. There is actually a script/gadget for RfD closures that I think only admins can access (under Administration in Gadgets), I'm not sure whether talkpages are a part of it but it hasn't been working for years, or it works in a certain skin or something like that, can't recall completely. --Ferien (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha no worries, I know there is just a shame it can't be used by us peasants :P although saying that it sounds like I'm not missing much after all if it's working and not working :) –Davey2010Talk 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Thanks all for commenting, I've redirected Template:Oldrfd to Template:Oldrfdfull per consensus above, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS spell 9

[change source]

Hi, does the decimals apply to single digit numbers that are written as words or not? (Example: three is written as a word but is 3.5 written as a word or a number?)

Link: w:MOS:SPELL09

2001:569:7C59:1E00:4CE5:6F70:8BE6:C11E (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends a bit on the context, but generally decimals are written as numbers. You might say "three-and-a-half years" or similar, but generally it's 3.5. SPELL09 you link to above refers to "integers", which are whole numbers. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks! 2001:569:7C59:1E00:4CE5:6F70:8BE6:C11E (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

[change source]

Is there really such a title as "First Gentleman of the National Committee of Brazilian Art"?

Thalison Lanoa is the page. 2601:644:907E:A70:A88A:D01:D812:BC47 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that such a title actually exists - it was translated literally into English from "Primeiro Cavaleiro do Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira (CNAB)". However, this person does not seem to be notable and the article has already been reported to the RfD. BZPN (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the page for deletion. Notability of association and this officeholder in particular is unclear Eptalon (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undelete of a Page

[change source]

Hi i want to request undeletion of page Ardi Pulaj, his notability is confirmed in Albanian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia ( after a discussion) with related arguments.Thank you.81.26.204.11 (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)81.26.204.11 (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please submit a request on WP:DRV. By the way, the notability of a person must be proven here, on simplewiki, and the existence of an article in other language versions does not change much. BZPN (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, if will be undeleted will be proven with references here too his notability, anway i will put request to realted page. 81.26.204.11 (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing users information page

[change source]

I have found Wikipedia:Emailing users. I believe it needs to be simplified as it's fairly complex and was copied from English Wikipedia. 2601:644:907E:A70:39FB:FF96:8D13:FB6D (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection, I will be happy to simplify it myself. However, we can just as easily replace the page with a soft redirect to enwiki, although on the other hand, if we already have it, we can leave it. BZPN (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to have a simplified version. 2601:644:907E:A70:39FB:FF96:8D13:FB6D (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need a simplified version. This is simplewiki after all. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 11:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[change source]

On mobile view, when I'm reading an article, I don't see the "Talk" tab, but I do see it when I go to the revision history of the article. I suggest that someone changes this so you can always see the "Talk" tab, like on English Wikipedia. 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. It's more of a technical issue/problem with the skin you're using, or a temporary technical issue. For me, everything works on the default vector 2022 in the mobile version. Administrators and other users cannot fix system problems locally, but you can always report a problem on Phabricator. BZPN (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account, so I don't think I can use any "skin"! What do you mean by "everything works"? 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That means I have the talk tab. Also, you didn't specify whether the problem is related to the situation you're logged in or the current situation, so I assumed one of the possible general causes. BZPN (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's odd. Mobile view seems to show the talk tab as intended for me. Could you provide any extra details to help us find the cause of this?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are logged out? And can you take a screenshot? 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, it doesn't appear when logged out. That is baffling.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me, even if I'm not logged in. BZPN (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using a mobile device? 2601:644:907E:A70:90D6:48CC:297D:A452 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BZPN (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried in an incognito tab on my chromebook, same result. Gonna try on my xbox one but will likely have the same result.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same result on my Xbox One, haven't tried anything non-chromium though.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a temporary bug, I had this yesterday. I'll see if I can fish out the phab ticket. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still going on? Can you take a screenshot, I've opened up a phabricator task as I have seen this error myself Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski I think I can but I have not seen the error myself yet. But I will try to do some things and see if I get the error. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 20:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's a logged in/logged out thing. I must have been on a hidden browser when I saw it before. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like as a non-logged in user, you don't see the tab on Simple Wiki. It can be a thing, provided we have consensus. See this phab ticket where it was enabled on ruwiki: [1] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this something we need consensus for? I think most of us would agree that such an unnecessary restriction is a bad idea that only hurts the wiki.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 20:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it's only a log in/log out error? @Lee Vilenski
And @FusionSub I agree with you but that's not the point right now, the point is that there was an error reported on the Phabricator, and we don't know if we can fix it or not. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 20:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, if you log out you also won't be able to see the tab. If you do the same on enwiki or similar, you will.
As the task would be part of the site requests feature on phab (or so I understand it) it would be best that we have at least discussed that we want this functionality (or at least that I have this to point to to show that it is wanted) if that makes sense. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this does make sense, thanks for helping clear this up. 𝓐𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓭𝓮 (𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 ♡ 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓼) 20:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sitewide change

[change source]

So, I've had some feedback on my ticket, and it looks like we do need an actual consensus on making this change. We'll need to fill out Requesting Wiki Configuration Changes which requires a direct link to a consensus.

To confirm, the change is to change this value [2] on Simple Wiki, which allows non-logged in users to see the article and talk page buttons the same as logged in users. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you support/oppose this change below:

Blix Tower

[change source]

Hello @Fr33kman,

i request the creation of the page, Blix Tower exists, it is a skyscraper in Brussels, Belgium. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:5D1B:4BC7:5A96:F6BD (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that this tower exists. 71.202.215.54 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QD'd as A6 - Cannot find any evidence that this even exists, QD'd the German article too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Pages and Author

[change source]

Do author of a Wikipedia page have more authority over the page the created like making edits that dont get reverted Ralphaelwiki (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralphaelwiki: No. Once a page is created, anyone can edit it. Changes can be reverted for valid reasons no matter who made them. I hope that answers your question. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may be considered the original author of a page that you create, however, the article enters the public domain when it's created, so everyone is the author in a sense. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of is – as long as there aren't any regional ties – you get to choose the date format and the English variant. Please note that the one who gets to choose is the first main contributor. The first main contributor is usually the author (User:A), but if the User:A only started a short stub and said stub gets expanded by User:B, the one who gets to choose is User:B. This is to prevent pointless change-wars over formats. You can also read this if you want to know more. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember also that the variant you chose might still be changed if there is consensus on the talk page. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

[change source]

Hi all, we had a discussion here but it got archived, so just putting up a reminder. Please do not manually archive the following pages as it is set to be autoarchived by SpBot. I am trying to see if it is working perfectly and/or trying to correct errors if they appear. In the long run, this is meant to make the archival easier and uniform. Pages include:

Thanks,-- BRP ever 11:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed good articles

[change source]

Hi, we have a few proposals that can be considered for closure at this point. If anyone is free, help there would be much appreciated.-- BRP ever 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to close the GANs, but as I've taken part in all of them, I'd want explicit consensus to be happy to do so. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I give my Support for you to close them. Contributor118,784 Let's talk 20:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-set talk-pages (in January)

[change source]

Some talk-pages, maybe need a re-set. Such as this one. 2001:2020:317:B3DB:3DF1:503E:D78C:34DF (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that article to our attention. You can also do this yourself by replacing the content with {{talkheader}}. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Griff (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help in reviewing the battle pages

[change source]

We seem to have many battle pages that lack reliable sources for verifiability. There is also a chance that those are battle within wars which are notable, while the battle itself is barely significant in comparison. Or some could simply be hoax as we have found a few. I am listing here a few that do not have enwiki equivalent and are not going through RFD, any help in reviewing them would be appreciated.

Thanks,--BRP ever 00:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pages on List of battles involving Kurds probably need a review as well. BRP ever 02:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BZPN, @Griffinofwales, @Eptalon, @Chenzw who are already involved to some extent. BRP ever 02:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit more background in case it's useful: while I can't remember which page it was, but a few weeks ago I also happened to come across one of the battle-related articles that appeared to be an attempt to bring content from one of the Fandom wikis, to this wiki. The Fandom wiki in question appeared to primarily consist of fictional/"alternate universe" content. Chenzw  Talk  07:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look at it today :). Best regards, BZPN (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A little time ago, I closed Massacre of Salmas (1918) (then called ...(1930)) as a keep. In that incident, it wasn't so much Kurds against the others, but rather: Likley predominately Muslims killing a patriarch of a small Christian denomination. Most sources I found were off-line, and in French. What I think this might mean is the following: A serious review means that whoever reviews, might likely want a library of a university, offering degrees in history/history of religion/christian theology. I haven't looked at the listing in detail yet, but I propose, that all articles should include at least one source and be more than 2-3 sentences. If they aren't we can likely delete them? Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, if they just don't have good context or if it's too non-notable. RiggedMint 09:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eptalon I have spent time reading several pages of 3 books often mentioned. Most of the battles mentioned here have very little content even there, in those pages. Whoever is using so many registered/unregistered accounts is always welcome to create a summary for the whole war or that specific part of history. But one to two sentence pages with no possibility of expansion and all based on single source without any other sources to verify the content makes me doubt the reliablity and notability in this case. However, I welcome some serious review and have sent most of them to RFD instead of simple deletion unless they have a serious lack of content. BRP ever 09:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess that would be a good option, create 1-2 pages for the respective conflicts, and group the battles there. It also adds context and helps understanding. Rather than: yesterday afternoon I again saw people bathing naked in the pond in the park just around the corner, having an article about the park, or the pond is likely more useful. Eptalon (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick research and determined if the articles are hoaxes or not. The list is here: User:BZPN/Hoax. I reported most of them to RfD. BZPN (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are few pages in List of battles involving Kurds that'd likely need review too. I found some copied from fandom and I am not exactly sure but the license looked compatible. Currently going through RFD. BRP ever 13:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=10006829"