Wikipedia:Simple talk

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


Prototype for editing Wikidata infoboxes on Wikipedia[change source]

Hello,

I’m sorry for writing in English. It’d be great if someone could translate this message if necessary.

One of the most requested features for Wikidata is to enable editing of Wikidata’s data directly from Wikipedia, so the editors can continue their workflow without switching websites.

The Wikidata development team has been working on a tool to achieve this goal: fill and edit the Wikipedia infoboxes with information from Wikidata, directly on Wikipedia, via the Visual Editor.

We already asked for feedback in 2015, and collected some interesting ideas which we shared with you in this thesis. Now we would like to present to you our first prototype and collect your feedback, in order to improve and continue the development of this feature.

We present this work to you very early, so we can include your feedback before and all along the development. You are the core users of this feature, so we want to make sure that it fits your needs and editing processes.

You will find the prototype, description of the features, and a demo video, on this page. Feel free to add any comment or feedback on the talk page. The page is currently not translated in every languages, but you can add your contribution by helping to translate it.

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to follow all the discussions on Wikipedia, so if you want to be sure that your feedback is read, please add it on the Wikidata page, in your favorite language. Thanks for your understanding.

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE)

New notification when a page is connected to Wikidata[change source]

Hello all,

(Please help translate to your language)

The Wikidata development team is about to deploy a new feature on all Wikipedias. It is a new type of notification (via Echo, the notification system you see at the top right of your wiki when you are logged in), that will inform the creator of a page, when this page is connected to a Wikidata item.

You may know that Wikidata provides a centralized system for all the interwikilinks. When a new page is created, it should be connected to the corresponding Wikidata item, by modifying this Wikidata item. With this new notification, editors creating pages will be informed when another editor connects this page to Wikidata.

Screenshot Echo Wikibase notification.png

This feature will be deployed on May 30th on all the Wikipedias, excepting English, French and German. This feature will be disable by default for existing editors, and enabled by default for new editors.

This is the first step of the deployments, the Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects will follow in the next months.

If you have any question, suggestion, please let me know by pinging me. You can also follow and leave a comment on the Phabricator ticket.

Thanks go to Matěj Suchánek who developed this feature!

Thank you! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk)

Proposal: Abuse/Edit filter managers[change source]

Chrissymad (who was too lazy to write a proposal) brought this up on IRC, and I thought it was quite an interesting proposal. In light of the recent influx of LTAs, (including one or two that require particular attention due to the content of their vandalism) it would be useful for (trusted) non-admins to have access to private abuse filters, and edit them. Obviously, this would require a new user right. The right would only need to include two flags; abusefilter-modify and managechangetags (in order to assign tags to filters), and could either be assigned by crats or administrators. The flag for two-factor authentication, oathauth-enable, would also be useful for security reasons. A relevant section would be created at WP:RFP. I'd like to hear what other people would think about this. :) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 15:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Obviously. And to expand a little bit, I believe this right is necessary as there has been a significant increase in xwiki vandalism/LTAs that compromise the project, one in particular (I'll leave nameless) has done so much damage to a specific category of BLPs that most of the good faith reverts back to "good" versions are still reverts back to one of his hundreds of IP socks. This would enable experienced and trusted users to deal with the filter portion and LTAs without bogging down admins with constant requests that are often time sensitive. Obviously admins will still need to do the blocking but at the very least the filters can prevent some of the issue and identify targets easily. There's obviously a lot about this that falls under WP:BEANS but I'd be happy to discuss it in greater detail if necessary. Chrissymad (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support One concern I'd have is that people know not to write rules that prevent specific words from being used at all, regardless of context. We want to prevent vandalism, not censor. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Auntof6 FWIW most filters are for identifying rather than preventing, so I don't think we'd run into that problem. Chrissymad (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      • The operative word being "most". We'd need the selected people to understand both things. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - While I support this, we need to figure out, is this going to be given like wp:ROLLBACK or wp:Patroller and given after request and review by an Admin or Crat, or are we going to require a community discussion like at wp:RfA. Also is this going to be a right that expires and requires a new discussion to keep them, say yearly. Also who will have the right to give this, Admin or Crat. All this needs to be figured out if we go forward with this request. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
With the power that is capable in the abuse filter, I personally think that we should require a community discussion, at a minimum, and would support the right be temporary, and given with a maximum term of 1 year term, to be reviewed via a re-conformation discussion yearly. But at minimum an wp:RfA type discussion. -- Enfcer (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's a good proposal and it could certainly help the project. I also agree with Enfcer that this right should only be be given after a RFA-style community discussion. However I'm not sure I support the point that people with the right should be subject to yearly review - mainly because no other useright (admin, oversighter ect.) has to have the same process. --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 18:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, they do, in a way. Admins (which includes crats, since crats have to be admins) have to remain active to keep their rights. Not very active, though. I think we have to make 100 edits a year, and those edits don't have to be administrator work. It's purely an activity requirement -- review of what an admin does can be done at any time. I think it would be reasonable to have the same requirement for people with this new right. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I was throwing it out there as a mere suggestion, but there are certain Global rights, where they have to come back Yearly for review, m:Interface_editors being the first one that comes to mind. With that, right, they can edit anyone's .css and .js, and drastically change how the web page acts, and it is my analogy that the same should be applied to this right to non-admins. Since admins will lose their adminship for not maintaining edit / log count, and therefore access to this right, so I feel it should have a similar restriction, but temporary at 1 year intervals is easier then maintaining edit / log counts for these users. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
        • As it happens I didn't actually that some rights were subject to annual reviews. Now I know, I think it's entirely reasonable for filter managers to have a similar level of scrutiny so I'll retract my original opposition to it. --Crasstun (talk | contributions) 13:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - going somewhat against my decision to stay mute on the project, I believe this would be a significant benefit to the Simple English Wikipedia. I entirely agree with the above idea to make it a temporary (1 year) right, if only to ensure that long disused accounts don't hold the right should they get compromised. I support the notion that a community discussion should be had over each application of the right. To bring the English Wikipedia into this (something I know I need to stop doing!), the right is given to non-administrators after a week long discussion and often requires non-admins to prove a working knowledge of the abusefilter extension and/or regex - something which I would urge to be echoed here given the edit filter's ability to cause widespread disruption through a simple mistake. Either way, it's a good step forward -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • While it appears we are moving in the direction that this will be accepted, we need to address the second issue, of who will issue the rights. Is this going to be a Crat Grant or will we allow Admin's to grant this. --Enfcer (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It is my thought and opinion, that if we are going to go through an RfA style discussion, that it should be limited to a Crat giving the right. -- Enfcer (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the community here is small enough that having this a 'crat given right would make sense, providing we have enough active 'crats? (it'll give them something to do as well!) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah to give admin like risky powers takes a 'crat in my opinion. It's not like we are over worked. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Should be year-limited, should take a 'crat. Only thing I'm not sure about is if it needs a discussion every year, or simply an approbation by a 'crat (or two). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Could just use the same basic procedure as Wikipedia:Inactive administrators except make it edit filter edits, although not sure how easy that would be to track. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
We can work on renewal after the closing of this RfC. but for now I know that when we request this to be created, we need to know who is to assign the rights, and the rights to be assigned in the group, and the name of the group, which these 3 have been discussed, and sounds like settled. We also know that we want them as an RfA like discussion to be granted. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to have this decided before you close this RfA to be honest, all these sorts of things need to be figured out before you implement a thing. -DJSasso (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Djsasso I don't think what I was trying to say came across right. I was meaning there are 2 parts to this, and the first part has to be set before we can take it to Phabrictor, and I figured it would take a couple of days there, before they got the new user group active here. And while that was pending, we could iron out any renewal issues, and have the right available to be assigned when it first opens up for RfAbuse Filter, and have everything done at the start. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
And my point was we shouldn't even go to Phabrictor until the details are ironed out. There is no rush we have been without the role a long time. The reason being it is often the details that sink something. People might agree we should have this user right, but when it comes down to figuring out the details there could very well be no consensus for any of the possible implementations of the details. It is likely looking above that won't be the case here, but you should never put the cart before the horse. -DJSasso (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 Comment While I agree that a framework should be in place for periodic review of the user right, I don't think using (the quantity of) abuse filter edits is a good measure for activity. Abuse filters are specialized in nature, designed to counter long-running patterns of abuse. I would consider it a good thing if filter edits are not frequent, because it means that the filters are doing the job and/or vandals are not effectively "adapting their tactics". Special:Log/abusefilter will give a better overview of filter editing patterns. I suggest using the same standard on Wikipedia:Inactive administrators, for those who take on the task of combating long-term abuse also need to be reasonably aware of prevailing editing patterns on this wiki. Chenzw  Talk  05:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I was just spitballing, that makes sense to me. We do need something, how it works is what we need to figure out. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Part of the reason I suggested a yearly review of the right. If they are inactive it will fall off without issue, and if they come back for the right, any concerns about their absence can be addressed then. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Just re-posting here to hopefully bring this back to life. We need to determine how we are going to determine the length of time or by what criteria the rights will terminate. -- 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Cultural warnings and advisory notices concerning death.[change source]

Hello. I'm bringing this topic to you following a conversation with User:Auntof6. Earlier today, I added a template which I created here in my userspace (based upon this template), which is intended to advise people from Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Island communities, that the article they're about to read might contain the full names, images, words or voices of people who have died.

This is a common warning used on Australian Television stations, broadcast before shows like Message Stick. Some Indigenous Australian tribes avoid naming the dead, and also looking at pictures of them, reading their words or quotes, or listening to their voices. It's also used in other ways, like before films and shows not aimed at those specific communities.

Traditionally, Wikipedia doesn't use disclaimers, and this is the first time that this issue has come to the foreground. It came to light because of the death of the Indigenous Australian musician Gurrumul.

I think it would be appropriate to have a warning of this nature on the encyclopedia, because after all, we're a multicultural, multilingual, property that anyone can edit - and also view. Bear in mind also, that the English Wikipedia are already using this template.

I believe we should follow suit.

The major drawbacks would be these; it would have to remain on articles for at least a year after the person's death, and it applies to ALL people who die, not just from Aboriginal cultures.

So I throw the floor open and ask this question; "Should this Wikipedia import and use the template from the English Wikipedia in respect of Aboriginal deaths, and those of other cultures where naming of the dead is prohibited?"

Your comments are welcomed. Thanks! DaneGeld (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn until raised with English Wikipedia. DaneGeld (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You say "English Wikipedia are already using this template," which sounds like it's being used quite a bit and has been generally accepted. However, it is on only one article, and both the template and the article are new at enwiki. I suspect that few people have noticed it yet, so I would take with a grain of salt any statement that it is well established there.
While I respect cultural practices, I don't think this template belongs on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not put this kind of cultural thing in articles. A similar case involves Muhammad, where an image is included even though that is against Islamic practice, and the phrase "peace be upon him" (or its abbreviation PBUH) is not used.
I also would not support use of a temporary template that needed to be removed after a year. We already have enough cases where the recent death and current event templates are overused and do not get removed in a timely manner. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, may I correct you by saying that the article concerning Gurrumul is most certainly not new and has been there for more than 9 years, the first edit (as a stub) being in April 2008. However, I agree that the template itself is new, and that it's not been discussed there or even approved for use. I think I will call off this request for now, and raise the use and appropriateness of the template at English Wikipedia before I proceed any further in this matter. Many thanks for your input once again, it's very valuable! DaneGeld (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're right that the article is not new. I must have been looking only at the first page of the history. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I favor the broader idea or not. But I do need to say that temporariness of a template is not a big issue. It's easy enough to code in the template with something like {{#switch:[date]|before one year = {{template}}|after one year = [blank]}}. I could even write a mega-template to do that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
That would actually be worse because then people would no longer see it to remove it and would make a mess of the underlying page code. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Not that I like the broader idea, either, but it could be done the way {{update after}} does it: when the time period has passed, the article is added to the maintenance category for articles that need updating. Granted, we probably don't have anyone keeping an eye on that category, but the article would at least be flagged somewhere. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

List of scientist pages dominated by red links[change source]

User:Sju hav and I have been involved in conversation on his talk page about his creation of several "List of (nationality) scientists" articles that contain almost all red links. See List of Bolivian scientists, List of Guatemalan scientists, and List of Fijian scientists for just a few random examples. More can be seen from the list on his user page. Since we don't have a specific guideline with regards to lists on Simple, we default to the English MOS at en:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Development which states "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space." Sju hav has made it clear that he has no intention to make the articles for the scientists, but, rather, will add commentary about them on the list.

I do not believe we should have lists consisting solely of red links per the guideline. My belief is that these should be moved into user space until they contain mostly subjects with articles on Simple English Wikipedia. Sju hav suggested I try opening deletion discussions on them, but I want to see the community's view on these articles. Only (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot to tell about the discussion at
Perhaps we should finish that "Keep" or "Not keep" discussion first,
(and if that discussion ends as "Not keep", then it is anyone's guess regarding what chance there might be that I will write a single article, about any scientists, for Simple English Wikipedia).
I am looking forward to contributing to other topics on Simple English Wikipedia,
even if I strongly might disagree with one or two wikipedians about the necessity of these Lists of scientists, by country.
These lists, we should "Not Keep", says two wikipedians (and I say "Keep"):
I didn't "tell about the discussion" at RFD because I opened this discussion hours before the RFD was opened by Auntof6.
As for and if that discussion ends as "Not keep", then it is anyone's guess regarding what chance there might be that I will write a ''single'' article, about any scientists, for Simple English Wikipedia: you're welcome to make that "threat" but it's not going to weigh into the decision as to whether or not the list articles meet guidelines. It's becoming increasingly clear why you are blocked on so many other Wikipedia projects, so I point you to WP:ONESTRIKE. Only (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to tell here about your vote to Not keep/Delete, at "16:01, 6 August 2017". It is not a big deal.
You forgot to tell about the rest of my "threat": that "I am looking forward to contributing to other topics on Simple English Wikipedia,
even if I strongly might disagree with one or two wikipedians about the necessity of these Lists of scientists, by country."
That in itself might also just be another honest mistake.
My edits on Simple English Wikipedia, speak for themselves.
(As far as being blocked on Swedish for not writing good enough Swedish, then please let me know if I start writing in Swedish on this wikipedia.)
(As far as being blocked on Danish, for another week, for not writing good enough Danish, then please let me know if I start writing in Danish on this wikipedia.)
If you do not have strong arguments (about the List of scientists) on your hand, then I can see why you would want to try to turn attention to disagreements (, not about List of scientists,) that I have had on other wikipedias.
Have a nice day! Sju hav (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Why would I need to come here and tell everyone I voted deleted on the RFD? That's dumb. Only (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If you had linked to the discussion at

then that would not have been "dumb", perhaps.
You and I might consider to agree to disagree.
Unless one or both of us, sees a need to Flog a dead horse. Sju hav (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Perhaps one should keep the lists only, until the category:Scientists from that-nation has at least 3 articles (, each regarding a separate scientist). Sju hav (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A possible option on the side:[change source]

Can wikipedia decide that a category should be a "soft category", and that one particular "category:Persons in this-occupation from that-country" can be created even if there is only one article in "category:Persons in this-occupation from that-country".
From my country, the arguably most famous mathematician is missing; I did not notice that until I created the category mathematicians from my country.
If I had seen that my country's most famous scientist (and not necessarily a mathematician) was not in a category with only one article, then I likely would have been tempted to create that article. Sju hav (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Share your thoughts on the draft strategy direction[change source]

At the beginning of this year, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire people across the entire movement. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups have discussed and gave feedback on-wiki, in person, virtually, and through private surveys[strategy 1][strategy 2]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 3]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

In July, a group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team took on a task of synthesizing this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The first draft is ready. Please read, share, and discuss on the talk page. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize this direction through August.

  1. Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone feel like looking at the soft redirect template?[change source]

Unlike enwiki's soft redirect template, ours ({{Soft redirect}}) doesn't work if the target is coded with a colon at the beginning. As a result, we have some soft redirects that don't work right. Does anyone feel like upgrading the template code so that it works when coded with an initial colon? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What pages do we have with an initial colon? I mean I will certainly look at updating it, but I can't think of when you would want to use a colon to start as that would be using it incorrectly. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't mean that the page name starts with a colon, just that it's written with a colon when used with the soft redirect template. See this change I made to fix an example that wasn't working because of this. The template appears to always insert a colon, so if the target is coded with a colon, you don't get a clickable link. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think there was a change in the MW code that started causing this problem. In the past it wasn't necessarily a problem to use the colon, and because failing to put a colon in front of a category or language code would result in a categorization or manual iw link on most pages, it wasn't necessarily even bad practice to do so. In any event, I'll have a look at the code, though probably not until tomorrow. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear, the issue has to do with the value of the parameter passed to the template. The template adds a colon before generating the redirect. If the incoming parameter value has a leading colon, the output is getting two colons. It could be fixed by either adding a colon only if one isn't already in the parameter value, or by not allowing colons in the value. Since we have more control over the former, that's the better solution, and that's how enwiki does it. I understand the logic well enough, but not the syntax of the language. (What language is that, anyway?) --Auntof6 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed. I completely understood. "Double colon" problems started popping up across the Wikimedia world maybe a month or two ago, so I figured something was tweaked in the code of MediaWiki itself to cause that to happen. I don't know why, but it was. So things are now set up so that whether or not the parameter value starts with a colon, what ends up coming out of the template is based on a parameter with one colon, not two (and not zero).
And, again, to clarify for DJSasso, you would start the link with a colon in a case like at the page User:Electric goat. If you don't, then the link [[ja:user:Electric goat]] would have disappeared on the page and turned into an iw link to a page on jawiki over in the left-side menu.
Disclaimer: I didn't actually test whether that would have happened within the {{Soft redirect}} template if I had simply removed the colon from the input parameter. But my point is generally true about in-line iw links that start with a language code rather than a project code, and for that reason many people including me are in the habit of starting such in-line links with a colon. And by modifying the template the way I did, nobody has to go in and edit all the pages that link to the template to make it work right.
StevenJ81 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Question for patrollers, including admins[change source]

Special:NewPages is no longer highlighting unpatrolled pages for me. Is anyone else seeing the same thing? I can see which ones are unpatrolled by hiding the patrolled ones, but there's supposed to be highlighting as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't look like there's any highlighting for me either. Not sure what the cause of it is, but maybe someone who's a little more techy would be able to tell us. eurodyne (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that this morning myself, and not just on this wiki. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
phab:T173556, phab:T144132 might be related --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)