Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk

WP:ST

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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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?

See WP:AN to speak to an administrator.
See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
See WP:OS for oversight.
See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant).
See WP:VIP to report vandalism.

Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge

change

Dialects

Is there help for Jamaicans, schooled in English but speaking with a strong Jamaican dialect? 2001:56A:6FE0:8BF5:144E:4AE4:3C2E:93EE (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects are not languages so we'd expect people to use normal simple English. There isn't anything specific to do for a Jamaican editor as written English is the same. There may be a Jamaican patois Wikipedia. fr33k man 19:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English is spoken in many countries. I laos expect there to be some regional variation. The vocabulary of South African English, English form Ghana, English from Belize, English from Guyana, English from Pakistan, English from India, from Malta... will be slightly different. In itself, that is not a problem. The main idea of Simple English is to explain well, and to use shorter sentenced, perhaps with an easy-to-underrstand vocabulary. So, use your terms from Jamacan English. If you think the word isn't common, you link it, and create an article. Look at Springbok, to see what I mean. And yes, that English has many different varieties is certainly a plus. So, be bold, and create articles. If they aren't perfect, other editors will fix them. Eptalon (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers game...

Hello, Joe Biden has about 11-12k hits this month, Donald Trump is at about half that number; compared to that Kamala Harris is at only 2-3k hits. I am just saying: it is important that we have good pages on these people, as they actually get read... Eptalon (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What improvements do you recommend, Eptie. Also, you're right. The truth is behind a paywall, and propaganda is free. We have a chance to do some real good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the presidential election It won't be "my president". All I am saying is that likely many people use SEWP for information on the candidates. So, whoever the candidates will be: Look that their articles are unbiased, watch out for vandalism, and if necessary use protection (until after the election). I expect the number to be about equal. Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2024, he was found liable of sexual assault in a court of law and is a convicted felon," - according to Simple-wiki (at this time).--Suggestion: move that to Talk page (partly because it sounds like 'a verdict about sexual assault, was all that was needed for a felony verdict', and/or partly because the reference is not saying that).--The wiki-article's sections about the various court cases, explains all of the cases (with dozens of references').--Good luck (while the article is semi-protected), 2001:2020:325:DFB9:C554:979A:6815:C9FA (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that Kamala Harris' article shot up to 14,000 views on the day after she became the presumptive nominee. [1] While they have fallen somewhat, the average views for her article in the last week is still at 3,000 per day, far above Joe Biden, Donald Trump, or JD Vance. This means it's an important article and needs work, although I haven't seen any evidence that it needs protection. OurRisingTide (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove a false statement (about Chemistry) from an article

"It occurs when sulfuric acid loses two proteins. If it is only loses one, a hydrogen sulfate ion is made.".-- Please remove from Sulphate (article).--That is the most simple way to fix the article. Good luck!

Now, if one (or more) are waiting for chemistry lessons to fall from the sky, then please simply tag the excerpt as "dubious" (or "false" or "allegedly false" or "dead wrong").--The very best chemistry student at most high schools, can quite possibly explain why the statement is false.--If one wants to see a high-school chemistry-teacher cringe or sigh? Show those c. twenty words.--I expect to be busy looking for other articles with false statements in the lead (but with chemistry-articles, i have only hit jackpot with this article). 2001:2020:355:86DB:6C44:216D:4D10:685 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate why you want this remove, you did not explain why it is false. thanks Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 01:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the problem was that it said "proteins" instead of "protons". I changed it. 2607:F140:6000:802A:70B3:2758:5BDF:FD (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, now the sentence can be kept right? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 02:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a seemingly false statement that has a citation-please review it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron&action=edit&section=4 “ This happens because the orbitals of those two electrons (dz2 and dx2 − y2) do not point toward neighboring atoms in the lattice, and therefore are not involved in metallic bonding.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevelMeasurement6553 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LevelMeasurement6553: Is this relevant to Simple English Wikipedia? If not, it should be asked on English Wikipedia, possibly on en:Talk:Iron or at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. 2607:F140:6000:802A:F484:3AD6:9C25:AF32 (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why are you asking a user who didn't take part in this discussion? Cactus�� ^spiky ^ouch 08:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that it (or, this quote) will be needed (or wanted) on Simple-wiki: "This happens because the orbitals of those two electrons (dz2 and dx2 − y2) do not point toward neighboring atoms in the lattice, and therefore are not involved in metallic bonding.”" 2001:2020:319:DAC0:F80E:F3EE:7935:99FE (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have permission to edit those pages, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by LevelMeasurement6553 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor, anyone can change pages here, the page isn't protected as far as I can see, why not try and change it?--Eptalon (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As that text is on the English Wikipedia, not Simple English Wikipedia, and this is not a likely place to find an educated chemist, it seems pointless to discuss this here. 2601:644:9083:5730:C91:A0FA:9209:A54B (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant citations

What should be done if a cited source doesn't mention the topic being described? There is a template for this on English Wikipedia, but not here. Cinnasaur (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinnasaur I guess delete them as they may be spam links? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that the reference cited on Nanotyrannus does not discuss Nanotyrannus at all. It's not a spam link, but it's not relevant to the article. Should I delete it and add an "unreferenced" tag, since there are no other citations? Cinnasaur (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinnasaur I did it for you, thanks. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinnasaur I can't say much without an example. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 09:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to fill vacancies of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through August 10, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: weekly rotation?

Hello, we currently have over 200 hooks in the queue. I propose we do a weekly rotation, we currently have hooks for 34 weeks. What do other people think? Eptalon (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think every week is too risky to jump straight up to. As I said last time, I think updating 3x a month would be best – 1st, 11th, 21st for consistency. I also think it'd be better if the queues were changed back to 5 each as this is a more convenient number to work with, and while we have a lot of queues right now, it is very easy to get to a point where we burn through them all and then end up going like 6 months without an update as we did when I started editing here in 2021. --Ferien (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion was at Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 157#DYK update frequency. I'd argue we also need to focus more on having a variety of hooks in each queue, as four of the six hooks on the main page have some sort of relation to the American continent. When we have 200 hooks, the queues should be as varied as possible. --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good fr33k man 18:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have fewer TLAs please? Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as clarification for all people reading, DYK is Did You Know --Ferien (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hai Tien

Please, please, please, help me. There isn't copyright infringement here. I wrote the contents. Me, only me Wyellowgreen (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done User blocked per WP:CIVIL. MathXplore (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wth is this about Harry (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading"

Simple Wikipedia uses "related pages" instead of "similar pages", "other websites" instead of "external links." "Further" is not very simple, so why not "more reading" instead of "further reading"? Or maybe "related reading"? What are your thoughts? MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 18:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Related reading", is a hard No, from me. Now if "Further reading" is not good enough, then maybe "More reading-material", or something like that.--Another thing, "Related pages" is a sort of "Related reading", or so it might seem. 2001:2020:335:9257:5CDA:626F:26F4:72A9 (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I noticed that Wikipedia states the religion of people who are Jewish and Muslim but doesn’t mention religion if the person is Christian. I find that odd and disturbing. 2603:7000:9500:3C2D:A506:A2D7:A2CB:A5CD (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as simple as all that. Many people who are "Christians" in one sense are unbelievers. In fact it may be that nowadays most are unbelievers or, in T.H. Huxley's word "agnostics". Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Christians" is a very generic term. Besides the three ort four common groups (Roman Catholics,Eastern rthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans) there are many groups that say that they are Chgristian, but where other groups say they aren't. One such example are the Mormons. So the question should also be according to whom? - Them seeing themselves as Christian is different from members of other Christian churches seeing them as Christian. I also think, that unless we are talking about a religious leader, specifying religion is not that important. Eptalon (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i wrote (and sourced) today that a record-holder for "my" national team, married in a church.--We have some articles that tell about a person being Christian (and some articles about people that have other faiths). 2001:2020:335:9257:5CDA:626F:26F4:72A9 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then add that he is Christian, if you like (likely church of Noway, Lutherans/protestants?).Be bold, it can always be adapted later.. Eptalon (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Indenting here, but I am not replying to anyone in particular) We have to be careful: just because a couple got married in a church, it doesn't mean they are Christian. There are many people (in Italy at least, I don't know about Norway) that get married in a church because it's traditional or cultural, because they don't want to disappoint their parents, because only one of them is Christian or simply because churches make very beautiful venues, but most town halls are ugly and boring. For example, my parents got married in a church, but my father is 100% atheist. In the alternative universe where he is on Wikipedia, he would never want to be described as Christian. We can't guess people's religion basing ourselves on their wedding venue (place). We always need a source telling us that they are actually Christian :) ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Norway does not demand that one or the other or both who marry (in Church of Norway), is a Christian. Source,
www.kirken.no/nb-NO/bryllup-i-den-norske-kirke/hvem-kan-gifte-seg-i-kirken/#:~:text=Alle%20par%20er%20velkomne%20til,en%20vakker%20feriring%20av%20kjærligheten.
--That football player married in a Church, and that is sourced.--To say more than that, one would need a source that says: 'confirmation (in a Church)' or 'is a Christian'. 2001:2020:30B:C47E:E1B2:6561:99EF:8820 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, you are right. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 21:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles that say their subject is Christian. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AllMovie titles with invalid value

Hi, Does anyone know how to fix the issue at Category:AllMovie titles with invalid value, For context none of the articles that are listed at this category show at en:Category:AllMovie titles with invalid value,

All AllMovie links work so I'm not sure what or where the invalid part is and as I said none of the articles listed here show at EN, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: It looks like the template might need an update from enwiki. Their template is has different code from ours. I just copied their code into the sandbox here, so you can test it out if you want before doing an update. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Auntof6, I think I was looking at it at around the same time so apologies if I stepped on your toes slightly. I imported the template from enwiki as it looks like the format of the AllMovie website has altered from the format of some movies being under the form of v(number) to vm(number) and our template did not originally allow for that. Even now, it appears all the articles in the category are in the correct format – either being linked to Wikidata or using m(number) – yet all those eight pages are appearing in the category as of right now. --Ferien (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: No problem. I wasn't planning on fixing myself because it looked like Davey was interested in doing it. I did try just removing the template parameter from one, and then it worked with no error. Maybe that's what we need to do, at least for movies that are linked in Wikidata. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Auntof6 and @Ferien, Many thanks for both of your help it's always greatly appreciated,

I had updated Template:AllMovie movie a few days ago but it didn't do anything so reverted back (I had force-purged the articles (clicked edit source, hit publish)),

Like yourself Auntof6 I've just removed the value from an article and the issue has gone - So should I remove this value from those 8 articles?,

Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: If each of them is linked in Wikidata and removing the value makes it work, I think that's the way to go. I like to see the templates getting their info from Wikidata whenever possible. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6, Okie dokie I'll remove them from those articles, Thank you both again for replying and helping/solving this issue it's very much appreciated, Have a nice day/evening, Warm regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Married in a church wedding (okay info?)

Is that okay information about a person (with a wiki-article, where the article does not say if the person is Christian)?

If more of the wiki-articles (about persons) were to write that person X married person Y in church Z - then that would be information that i would not find odd and disturbing.--If there is no information (or source) about any of the married people being Christians, then i (also) would not have any problem about mentioning that the wedding was "a church wedding". Thoughts? 2001:2020:335:9257:5CDA:626F:26F4:72A9 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as also outlined above, completely unproblematic in my opinion Eptalon (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Eptie. It's good. There might be some circumstances under which it's irrelevant or inappropriate, but I cannot think of any. There are many reasons why a non-Christian might get married in a church, including but not limited to their spouse being Christian. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patroller rights

Hello. When considering a request for patroller permissions, do administrators take into account experience and permissions in other language versions of Wikipedia? BZPN (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator observation) @BZPN Yes Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why do you think so. MathXplore (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore me? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm asking to you. You are responsible for your answer. MathXplore (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant if you have on another Wikipedia, it is more likely you would get them. Account experience is to show how experienced you are and if you your changes are suitable for the permissions. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Patrollers doesn't clearly mention that (have I missed something?). MathXplore (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think it is same as rollback? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, but if you want to say your thoughts, then please clarify with {{nao}} rather than a simple Yes/No in this case. MathXplore (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 08:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Patrollers says that this can be given to "trusted users who regularly create articles and have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (especially Wikipedia:BLP, Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability)."
Trust may be evaluated with global contributions (blocks in other projects, etc.), but local edits should come first. Also, different versions will have different Wikipedia:BLP, Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability rules. For example, every nation will have different copyright/privacy rules. Understanding rules in other places doesn't immediately prove familiarity with simplewiki rules.
Please also note that we are a simple-language project unlike other versions, so all patroller candidates should prove writing skills in Simple English.
If I were you, I would answer "maybe", but local edits should take precedence.
If you think administrators must consider experience and permissions in other language versions of Wikipedia when judging patroller requests, please send your suggestions to Wikipedia talk:Patrollers. MathXplore (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, we must note that the technical settings of patrollers are different among Wikimedia projects. Meta-Wiki patrollers (m:Meta:Patrollers) and English Wikivoyage patrollers (en:voy:Wikivoyage:Recent changes patrol) include rollback, but our patrollers are completely different from rollbackers. MathXplore (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore, Thank you for the clear explanation. Referring to your observation, I think that if patrollers in other projects have more opportunities (e.g. rollback), it gives them more experience not only in checking new articles, but also in other situations (e.g. fighting against vandalism). Here you just need to adapt your experience and skills to the rules of Simple Wiki, but this is just my opinion. BZPN (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my suggestions to the Wikipedia talk:Patrollers. BZPN (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is 90% misinformation and needs a massive revamp (Oggy and the Cockroaches Movie)

The article for Oggy and the Cockroaches: The Movie is filled with 90% misinformation and is lacking actually relevant information, it's been like this for years as it's been constantly sabotaged by anonymous editors. I think the article needs to be completely redone or be removed, and if it is redone, editing should be locked to users only to prevent further sabotage and trolling SpaceCowgirlFluttershy (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have yout tried starting a discussion about deleting it? - See WP:RFD Eptalon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the 'misinformation'. I do not see any in the article. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 03:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]