This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
IP what are you talking about? Since you supposedly know so much and you merged them, how about if you do it correctly and remove the merge tag? Oh wait let me do that for you since you are off fixing other articles. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑!21:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle: If you think these pages should be deleted, the process is to propose either quick deletions or an RFD. RFDs are where discussion would take place. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 Immanuelle is blocked from editing mainspace and is therefore unable to tag the articles. The first two are now tagged for QD, but I'm not sure about the third - someone else can start and RfD if they want. Kk.urban (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{@Auntof6: If a user is indefinitely blocked from editing all of mainspace shouldn't that just be set to the whole of the project? After all what else does it let the person do? fr33kman13:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Immanuelle Yes, I think your contributions are helpful. I understand that you were blocked for creating complex articles and/or an excess of machine translated articles, not for anything relating to deleting pages, so I think there's nothing wrong with your request here. Kk.urban (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban thank you. Can you look a bit at the article Wet T-shirt contest, I think it is a bit pov biased (the sexism sentence) and it has an image which does not really explain it since the shirt is not wet, it is just pulled up.
@Immanuelle I will change the image and the comment. I know that Wikipedia is not censored, but I strongly believe that nudity should only be found within articles about nudity, sex, health, etc. I mean that you should only see such pictures when you expect to see them (in my opinion). "Wet T-shirt contest" sounds innocent (turns out it is not), so I did not expect to see that. And if anybody disagrees with me, they can change the picture again, no problem, I will not engage in an edit war. DreamIndigo18:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did some rephrasing yesrday. I also added possible alternatives to the images we now have, including the image that was originally there. I have no issue with nudity. No matter what image is selected: the image is there to illustrate the concept. And in case of a wet t-shirt contest, what do people expect? - likely girls in soaked, now transparent t-shirts or girls that are topless. Eptalon (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added quite a bit of content to the page. Personally, I think the images used are tasteful, even though they show some level of nudity (toplessness). But in general, such discussions are for the article talk page. As always, no one owns articles, and ifyou think an image does not serve its purpose, this can be discussed on the article talk page. Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the sources don't mention Durius Gund, so there isn't significant coverage. You can vote to delete there I think if you want. Cleo Cooper (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more input
Hi all, sorry to bother you, I was wondering if I could get a little more input into #Category move discussion above? It's a large task (which I can handle), but before I put in a request for AWB, I'd like some comments about the task being suitable. Thanks for your time. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial blocks
Now that we can block a user from contributing to various namespace and/or an article or other namespaces should a indefinitely partial block of mainspace equal a total site wide block? fr33kman13:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to create an Encyclopedia. So, our most important namespace is the main namespace. Now, it is possible that I find an interesting fact, and add that to the DYK discussion page, That's not mainspace. Or I contribute to one of the various other discussions. I do however question if an editor who is blocked from editing mainspace can be a useful contributor. So, likely, yes, it is. Eptalon (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean as in creating more. a lot of pages have no redirects and/or are missing them. "speeding up" basically means to make more of them faster with a group of people LOLHWAT (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few pages really need redirects. I certainly wouldn't want to see a mass effort to create more that aren't really needed. If that's what you have in mind, I think there should be a consensus that people on the project want that. We've had people do that kind of thing before and the redirects often get deleted.
What I thought might be helpful is to add templates to redirects to indicate the purpose of the redirect. For example, some are redirects from alternate spellings, or from related items, etc. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we generally dissuade having redirects for redirects sake. The search algorithm is pretty decent now, so it doesn't help with that. Redirects are useful when there is a term that is suitable to be linked in mainspace, and has a target, but we don't just add all possible redirects to pages. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)06:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that there is no level3 warning. Instead, their pages suggest that we use {{uw-vandalism4}}, which is a bit bitey, in my opinion. {{uw-vandalism3}} would make a better level3 warning.
Hi Dream Indigo, I think it's not added to there because it was "only" added 10 years ago, compared to most of those other templates. I would agree with what you said about using uw-vandalism4, and it might be worth making our own unsourced3 and unsourced4 warnings, rather than calling it vandalism, as adding unsourced content isn't really vandalism. --Ferien (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Indigo, yeah, I think it'd be good to add them. Once the other unsourced warnings have been added, they could be dropped on simple talk as well to ask for any potential feedback then add them to the table as well. --Ferien (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien, I added them. I may also simplify those other two now, they are very short notices, it will take a short time. Of course, I'll drop them here before "making them official" (I do not remember how to say it) :D DreamIndigo22:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how do i change my password i forgot what i made it
Categorizing people who move from one place to another
How should we categorize people who move from one place to another? This is a tricky issue because we have categories based on demonyms (American sportspeople, Japanese academics), and categories that use the word "from" (Writers from Toronto). Do these mean anything in particular, or is it just "a person with that occupation who lived in that place sometime in their life"?
For example, what if someone grows up in Japan, then moves to Canada and becomes a politician there? Do we include them in "Category:Japanese politicians" even though they were never a politician in Japan? Or do we include them in "Category:Japanese people", thereby polluting that category with pages that can't be subdivided by occupation?
Another example, take "Category:Politicians from California", which includes Governors of California, Senators from California, Representatives from California, etc. Should it also include someone who grew up in California, went to college in California, then became a representative for Illinois?
And then there are academics. Many articles will call a person "a Chinese academic" although they spent most of their career in the USA. Clearly this means that a person's origins can be important, whether or not their career took place elsewhere. But we have no way to indicate this.
You raised a great point that should be talked about on enwiki as well, because it is equally as confusing there.
I have always followed enwiki and categorized people by their nationality, rather than their ethnicity. Category:Japanese politicians is a sub-category of Category:Politicians by nationality. If one has a double citizenship, I put them under both categories. I would put the Japanese-Canadian politician either under "Canadian politicians" only or both, depending on their nationality.
We have some categories by ethnicity on simple, but not as many as enwiki (none for Asian-Americans; that "Chinese academic" should probably go under "American academics", unless they have Chinese citizenship).
About categories that use the word "from", I noticed that they usually refer to the place someone was born in (I again always follow enwiki when choosing categories of people I do not know).
Some examples with famous people:
Albert Einstein, born in Ulm, had many citizenships: "People from Ulm", "Jewish American academics", "Jewish German academics", "German physicists", "Swiss physicists" (simple)
Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires, Argentinian nationality with Vatican citizenship as well: "Writers from Buenos Aires" (simple) "Clergy from Buenos Aires" (en), not "XYZ from Rome"
Politicians are a tricky category, because it is a job where places matter a lot. Barak Obama, born in Honolulu, is categorized under three "from" categories (Honolulu Illinois and Chicago), both here and on enwiki.
I clicked ctrl+s or some shortcut with my elbow by mistake (just guessing) and there was nothing I could do to stop it from posting my draft-answer. Sorry for that! Also nationality and citizenship are two different concepts, I know that, but I did not want to post it so early, so please forget that. Now to my actual answer. Think of this more like a brainstorming moment.
You raised a great point, I have always wondered something similar.
I have always followed enwiki and categorized people by their nationality and/or citizenship, rather than by their ethnicity. Category:Japanese politicians is a sub-category of Category:Politicians by nationality. If one has a double citizenship, I put them under both categories. I would put the Japanese-Canadian politician either under "Canadian politicians" only or both, depending on their nationality and/or citizenship on a case by case basis.
We have some categories by ethnicity on simple, but not as many as enwiki (none for Asian-Americans; our "Chinese academic" should probably go under "American academics", unless they have Chinese citizenship or nationality; I would probably put them under both).
About categories that use the word "from", I noticed that they usually refer to the place someone was born in, sometimes the one they grew up in (I again always follow enwiki when choosing).
Some examples with famous people:
Albert Einstein, born in Ulm, raised in Munich, had many citizenships: "People from Ulm", "Jewish American academics", "Jewish German academics", "German physicists", "Swiss physicists", "Educators from New Jersey" (I would personally remove the last one) (simple) "Scientists from Munich" (I would have chosen "from Ulm") etc (en)
Pope Francis, born in Buenos Aires, Argentinian nationality with Vatican citizenship as well: "Writers from Buenos Aires" (simple) "Clergy from Buenos Aires" (en), not "XYZ from Rome"
Leonardo da Vinci, born near Florence, Italy, worked in Milan, Rome and France a lot: "People from Florence" (simple) "Painters from Florence" (en), nothing about France/Milan/Rome
Adolf Hitler (right now I can't think of many other super-famous people that moved from one place to another), born in Braunau am Inn, Austrian and German nationalities: "People from Upper Austria" (simple) "People from Braunau am Inn" (en), not "XYZ from Berlin"
Politicians are a tricky category, because it is a job where places matter a lot. Barak Obama, born in Honolulu, is categorized under three "from" categories (Honolulu Illinois and Chicago), both here and on enwiki.
This is Subhan Ahmad from Afghanistan. I hope you feel well. First let me thanks you from your attractive services and then let us inform you that as a wikipedia editor i have found that some iranian wiki editors and admins are trying to rob Afghan data according history, geography and more and added them to thier own Fersian data. Although we try alot to edit some of thier falls tips and data as mentioned and present them as correct but still they edit them wrong and beside warn us to be aware. Subhan Ahmad KDR (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there,this is Simple English Wikipedia, one of the several language versions of Wikipedia. Wikipedias are made by volunteers who work together. In the case of content on the Iranian-language Wikipedia, you need to talk to the people that are active editors at that Wikipedia, there's little we can do for you here (we similarly need to talk to those people). As to the content of an article, statements in the article need to be verifiable, using reliable sources. Very often, there will be more than one view on an event, so there will also be reliable souces covering the other views people have on that event. Wikipedia tries to be unbiased, what we call Neutral point of view. Usually, there is no harm in pointing out that other people have different ideas, to say what these ideas are, and to add reliable, thid-party sources.
I don't know what you mean by 'rob Afghan data according to history, geography and more'. Wikipedia is an encycopledia, and sources do not have to be in the lanuage of the Wiipedia project. Eptalon (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sequel is obviously partially lost, so some information of the sequel is not available. However, it has been covered several times in some South Korean (South Korea is a country where the show was made.) newspapers. Should it be described in one infobox? 린눈라단 (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main show was an animated web show?--The main show will possibly not survive AFD/ RFD.--My guess is that it has already been shot down, at English-wiki. Not wiki-notable, is what I am leaning towards. 2001:2020:307:D000:DCAF:57A3:2E7D:F00C (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, earlier today, I ptomoted Bowls to Good Article. There are other articles at the proposals page. Please take a look, and leave comments. My idea would be to get 1-2 articles promoted to GA status per month.
As to sources for such articles:
If w can get statistics about what articles have been viewed most, edited most, edited by the most number of different people, we can identify "target" articles that would likely be worthy to work on.
Also, controversial subjects likely get more views, and edits.
Sending a message to the LGBTIQ+ community hasn't been done yet; there's one article waiting, but it has issues... Eptalon (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As it's only one nomination at a time, I couldn't get another one together until this had been passed/failed. I should have a steady stream of articles I have improved and think meet the criteria. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is Special:MostRevisions which will give you the most edited pages, although I don't find that to be super helpful. Enwiki has a tool called ORES that can give a good idea as to the quality of an article.
Fwiw, incentivising quality articles is how we create them, and I think opening up closures to any user in good standing would help move the reviews on, which to me seems like they drag on a bit. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was more thinking of:
Articles most accessed
Articles most changed
with say the last 7 / 15 days. Most likely this is a database report
Fwiw, I don't think we need to be super constrictive as to what articles can be GA (in terms of popularity). I would just encourage people to make articles, collaborate and improve them as much as they can. I have almost 150 Good or Featured articles on enwiki, so if anyone wishes some help, I am always here to help (if you think it would help). Obviously, just the one on simple wiki, which I hope to rectify soon! Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that GAs should be popular or controversial articles, what I see though: we should really aim at getting 1-2 of these per month. Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we tried getting an lgbt-themed article there (so far no luck), so it would really be interesting to see if it is easier to get a controversial article to GA status Eptalon (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced tool question
Hi, Are there any tools out there that can remove "link=commons:Category:" from List of Toki Pona words ?, Unfortunately WP:WPCleaner lists it as a bogus file option but doesn't offer to remove them and so I was hoping we had another tool that could ? maybe AWB ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk13:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't have AWB and have never used it, No idea the links bizarrely work and they do go to the categories but to my knowledge wikiprojects don't link in this way ? (ie it should go straight to the file), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find and replace wouldn't work as each image has a different category linked, I've hidden out the links for now, Not ideal but it works –Davey2010Talk15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I think I can make a regex to do that. I see that the links are all in comments now. Do you just want those comments removed? I could put it in a sandbox and do a test run for you to check. Just let me know if you want the comments removed or something else. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Auntof6, I've just undone the hidden stuff - Yes please just the "link=commons:Category:" stuff removed please if possible, Okie dokie I'll be out all day so I'll reply once I get back home, Many thanks, Kind Regards, –Davey2010Talk07:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 you are absolutely amazing thank you so so much for doing this, I greatly appreciate your help and efforts, I've pasted the content and blanked your sandbox, Thanks again for doing this I greatly appreciate it, Have a lovely day, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk16:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FusionSub: I don't know of a policy, but it's probably a bad idea. We would lose the red links that we use to tell use what articles we are missing. Plus, if we are going to do that, 1) which other wiki's article to we redirect to and 2) we might as well just populate this wiki with redirects, which wouldn't serve our target audience. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FusionSub: I just deleted it as having little or no info. If you see any more, feel free to tag them for QD.
Note that I'm only talking about mainspace. We do have useful soft redirects in Wikipedia space (and maybe help space and/or others). -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fellow editors. If you watch maintenance categories, I'd like to suggest adding Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template to your watch list. Articles show up here if there's an invalid date, but they also show up if a dated maintenance tag is added without creating the corresponding monthly maintenance category. The category has more information about when/why pages appear there. There are currently only 2 people watching this category. If more people watch it, I think we'd get the maintenance categories created in a more timely manner.
You would need to include category changes in what you see in your watch list. If you don't know what that means, or you don't know how to do it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts from other editors on an article
Hello. I wanted to get others thoughts on this article Parish (country subdivision) which was just created. I am not finding it anywhere else and I am debating to myself if it is something we should keep. Perhaps, I was thinking, is make Parish a disambiguation page (currently it is only about churches) and create links to the various Parish lists we have. I would love to see the thoughts of others. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑!00:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked the article in Wikipedia. As for Parish, it is fine as it is because the religious meaning is the primary one. It could use a hatnote pointing to the non-religious one. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it correctly. The content of the articles I linked is the same. I changed the target of the redirect to the article closest in meaning. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors cover sensible talk pages with the standard TP cover. That's not sensible because it means the relevant content cannot be directly seen. Stop doing that, please! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific, or give an example?
If you're talking about user talk pages, then users are allowed to remove content from their talk pages, including by blanking or replacing content with the talk header. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What to do?
When they make good faith edits, but their summary is offensive, is rollback with a warning suitable, or is it better to request revdel? [2]. DIVINE09:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DIVINE: If the content of the edit is not offensive, then rollback will not work. As for revdel, it depends on exactly what is in the edit summary. Feel free to ask for revdel if you feel it's needed, but be aware that it might be declined. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on how bad the edit summary is. I'd reacquaint yourself with what the level is for being revdelled. It is possible to revdel just an edit summary and not the change. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is likely an edit from LTA/GRP. He is banned by the Wikimedia Foundation and is not allowed to make any edits to any Wikipedia Project no matter if they are good or bad. (From his LTA page). 84Swagahh (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all,
I looked at the edit history of African Americans, and I saw that in the last few months, most edits were either racist vandalism (by IP editors) or reverting that vanalism. For this reason, I have semi-protected the page for six months. While Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit (almost) any page, racist slurs are among the things we do not need. I have no issue at all blocking such editors. Note to all the good-faith IP-editors: you can still discuss changes on the talk page of the article, and an autoconfirmed user will post them, once there is agreement. Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking
We lack some of the literary glories of the American 20th century (I don't mean we have nothing at all):
Unlinked song names - chances of these ever being created is slim so I've unlinked those, The <country> at Eurovision articles I plan to create at some point, Thanks –Davey2010Talk19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with R/O being removed and I've removed that and replaced it with "Order"
The numbering doesn't make it hard, imho the points and place do however given all 3 sections mention voting it's therefore common sense to include it?
I certainly do believe the tables need simplifying and I commend you for at least trying to battle it but as I said the order column isn't the issue and I don't know how else it can be simplified ? Thanks, –Davey2010Talk19:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted?
Hello! I've came across this poster used for The Super Mario Bros. Movie and I was wondering if this is a copyright issue. As far as I know, posters are not used on this Wikipedia due to the non-free use rationale (that does not allow it to be uploaded to Commons for use). However, it was noted in the description of the file that I cropped the image and used lightning filters. it is from The movie database and the uploader has cited it as their own work. This poster is also not the theatrical release poster. Should I put it up for deletion? Jolly1253 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jolly1253, I would've done it for you but kinda blocked there lol, Brilliant thank you for tagging them, You're welcome :), Happy editing, Many thanks, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk15:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Katyn Massacre
Hello, A message on my talk page today got me thinking about the facts on the Katyn Massacre article. There are currently no references on the page which talk about the numbers of deaths. Across different version of Wikipedia, including the English WP and German WP (where the page is Featured), numbers seem to range from a precise 21,857 to ranges between 22 and 25 thousand. They also distinguish between deaths at Katyn itself (4-5k) and in the related massacres. Does anyone object if we add this to the page, with references? I'm bringing it here in an attempt to stay away from the article's talk page, for obvious reasons. Yottie=talk=16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead, but bear in mind that the 20k-25k are likely the total number. Those killed in the forest near Katyn are 4.400-5.000. Alexander Shelepin wrote in 1959 that 4421 had beenkilled in a "forest near Katyn". In 1994, a list was given to Poland by Ukraine; it contains 3435 names. A similar list assembled by Belarus contains 3870 names. 4410 to 4430 graves of Polish victims, killed in 1940 were found. Be careful about the sources you use. Eptalon (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Nazi troops discovered the massacre, it would be great if we could get sources of the time (that is: likely, the 1940s). Eptalon (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least one thing seems to be missing: We don't have all the sub-templates that the following (linked) template has, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:LGBT.--Creating some or all of those templates, would be doing something. Thougts?--(Doing an inventory of which templates we do not have, is also somewhere to start.) 2001:2020:357:C0AA:F5CF:26E9:696A:CBCC (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone want to look at an issue with a template?
I've been working on clearing Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. Some of the articles are in the category because they use the parameter alt_name in Template:Infobox television. Our template doesn't accept it, but enwiki's does so it seems like that parameter should work. For the time being, I'm not removing it. Would anyone like to see if they can figure out why our template doesn't allow that parameter when enwiki's does? It doesn't look like our copy is back-leveled. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not exactly experienced with editing templates, I can say for sure that at no point in the source does it ever mention a alt_name parameter, while using view source on EN's template brings up 2 mentions of the parameter.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for now I'm changing the parameter to be what our template expects. Later on, we can change things to match enwiki if we want to (we probably should due to things being transwikied). --
Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC
Hello all,
The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.
This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.
Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.
I don't think recreation is any simpler than recreational and neither is a simple word. Besides that, the first one could be read as meaning drug use related to recreational activities, such as taking performance-enhancing drugs. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drug use (recreational drug use) - how about that for a title? Justification: it is (arguably) simpler than "Recreational drug use" - and in additon it answers Which subset of drug-use, is this article about.--The idea about "soft drug" - is different from country to country (and some experts in western countries, seem to be saying that there are no "soft drugs"). 2001:2020:343:EBC5:C1C3:B215:18EE:D687 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]
@Darkfrog24 - Recreational ... can be explained in section:Etymology or Origin of name.--There is no rule that all the words in an article title, have to be simple.--When an article has an okay title, then that article is a good place to explain, why the politics of America, ended up using the phrase Recreational drug use.--Not sure that is it helpful, to try to translate "recreational", before one has decided the limits of Recreational drug use, and how those limits might have changed over time (say, in the United States).--There were some that claimed that smoking "grass" was regarded as Recreational drug use, while injecting opium-related things was beyond Recreational drug use. (Don't have a source, however that view might at best be a fringe view in the western world.)--Some phrases that have become catch-all phrases, do not translate nice-and-simple. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:C04:DC72:45F5:2517 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]
I think the point of Simple is not "If you don't understand it, you can stop reading the article and go somewhere else to look it up" but rather "you don't have to break your rhythm." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have the following cases:
Drug is used for a medical condition; perhaps a doctor prescribed it
Drug is used for a medical condition, but was developed for something else ("off-label use")
Drug is used to enhance performance ("doping"); likely it wasn't prescribed
Drug is used outside the medical context, because of an effect it has; likley not monitored by a doctor.
And no, the difference between recreation and recreational isn't big, and the term needs to be explained. Likley we want to cober the last case of those I listed, with the category. Eptalon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Category 4" - i am somewhat sceptical to that definition, for now.--Example: one gets a months supply of tablets from an MD. The MD has given written instructions to take 3 per day. There will be cases where the patient starts out the day, according to the MD's instructions. However, after 5 days, there are no tablets left.--Another thing, there is an Oxycodone epidemic in at least one country. Maybe that fits in, with Category 4, or maybe not. 2001:2020:327:EAFD:1C7C:4417:8C67:2D4D (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]
With category 4, I was more thining about the usual drug addict, who takes, for example heroin, because it makes them feel good. Heroin is an opioid, and as the other opioiods, there's a strong effect of habituation; people also get dependent on it. Eptalon (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no very clear objective distinctions here. The term recreation isnt very clear, and what counts as abuse is rather subjective. What is prescribed changes with time and place. Rathfelder (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "Hard drug" and "Soft drug" no very clear objective distinctions.--There is even the case of Thailand's current cabinet: it seems to be paving the way for having cannabis outlawed (Marijuana became somewhat legal to use, a couple of years ago.)--Trying to decide if a drug might be a soft-drug, can be compared to deciding the boundaries/limits of short pieces of string. 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:345:8F5E:894E:A82B:A393:40D3[reply]
Hi, I was looking to submit my draft, but there's nowhere I can do it, or I at least don't know how on this Wikipedia, could someone help me? RoyalSilver17:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! We don't really have a system in place for drafts due to our small size. When you feel like the article you have written is ready to be a "true" article you can move it to the title you want.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 19:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[The following, has already been answered, two threads above.]I would like to add a question: How can one estimate, so to speak, if a school is wiki-notable (for Simple-wiki)?--(As far as the mentioned school in Topeka: there is an article at En-wiki, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topeka_High_School and that article has apparently never been sent to AfD/ RfD.) 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)/ 2001:2020:32F:FCD1:91AA:1C0C:AC83:9B70 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft
Hello, I'm simplifying an article to publish here, and I was wondering,
1. How do I submit the draft?
2. I added that it's a translation on the talk page, do I need to put anything else?
I haven't looked at the draft in-depth, but the consensus here is that in general, schools below university/college level are not notable. So, getting that arccepted will likely be difficult. Eptalon (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The school is a major part in Topeka, and is a historical site. It's also on the English Wikipedia so I thought it would be notable RoyalSilver (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find the consensus about not generally including schools? (I would think that schools like Exeter, Eton, Philips, Bronx High School of Science and Uni High (Urbana) would be of interest to some of our readers.)Kdammers (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my contribution to "updated-or-new-or-whatever" consensus: I am fine with, *in general, schools below university/college level are not wiki-notable "for a wiki-article title of their own".--Justification, in part, for high threshold: because if high-schools mostly are shooed-in, then we might be on a slippery slope for shooeing in most kindergartens and elementary schools. 2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we lacking categories?
Hello, I wrote unexploded bomb and demining today. I weas looking for a fitting category, but didn't find any. While trhere might be a theme complex with land mine, most unexploded bombs aren't land mines. Any idea what category to use? Eptalon (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's pros and cons to it but I feel it's a terrible idea as it doesn't allow categories to be branched out and expanded (unless you're creating 3-4 articles within one day), –Davey2010Talk15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categorisation is hierarchical. If there isnt one which fits exactly you must look wider. When there are enough articles then you make a new category - which fits into the wider scheme. Rathfelder (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for the unexploded bomb the category is explosives, for the other I created a category mines and mine removal. Nevertheless, cat: explosives is growing big, but that's a different problem Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: When you're criticizing another editor, please have the courtesy to let them know about it somehow, perhaps by linking their user name or doing a ping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer here is a piece of work that goes through existing categories and spots themes for splitting them. I get that if you are used to enwiki, that having categories for EVERYTHING is suitable, but the issue is that on a smaller wiki, you'll end up with hundreds (probably thousands) of single-article categories, which just aren't helpful. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban: It's not clear exactly what was done. Did Beaufort County turn into Pitt County? Did they take part of Beaufort County to make a new county called Pitt? I suspect it was the latter, but it could say that more clearly. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kk.urban There are definitely some words like "overwhelming" which may seem big for people who are learning English, so it still needs further simplification. But, I think the phrase "overwhelming majority" is used a lot. Cyclonial (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idea:Very Good Lists
This would be adapted from enwiki's featured lists. Similar idea. Probably needs to be edited but heres a basic first draft of (simplified) criteria:
1:Writing. It very well written.
2:Lead. It has an interesting lead that is a summary of the article.
3:Completeness.
3A:It talks about the entirety of the subject, has all important things and if you are able to all things that would be belong in that list, and it has notes giving helpful facts about the stuff in the list.
3B:Things in the article are sourced where the thing is. They have inline sources and cite all things that must have sources.
3C:It is a list, isn't a content fork or mostly a duplicate from a different article, couldn't be included in another article.
4:Structure. It is easy to read through, where useful there are sections and tables
5A:Looks good, using tables, color, formatting, etc. Lower number of redlinks.
5B:It has related images. They don't have issues with copyright and non-free images meet the criteria and are labeled.
5C:Good formatting, all readers can read easily. Bulleted lists and table are done correctly.
6:Stale. No change war happening, list changes little from day to day.
7:Simple. It is written in Simple English, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and meets everything needed of every article (neutral, not original reasearch, reliable sources, notable, etc.)
We already have good articles, and very good articles; when I look at the general participation, I don't think we need yet another one of these. Especially since the "very good" implies that they would be comparable to VGAs. The last promotion to VGA was over 6 months ago... Eptalon (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well lists can't be GA or VGA, right? What does the last promotion to VGA have anything to do with this. And at least on enwiki, Featured lists are pretty comparable to Featured articles@EptalonMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying: this is a small community, and getting something to VGA is a huge effort; if I now say that there's an other category (comparable to) VGA, likely we won't see more people working towards that goal. Even with GA, which isn't as complete, getting an article there takes months, and as you can see, some articles do not get promoted (likely also, because it takes too long). Eptalon (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that because it is hard to make quality content, we should limit how we recognize quality content and improve qualtiy. I get your point, but of course quality content is hard, otherwise most content would be high-quality.@EptalonMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't think this will help improve Wikipedia much. On English Wikipedia, people often add a lot of text that is only vaguely related to the topic, so it can meet the standard for a featured list. If someone is just looking for the list, that may make it harder to read. Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists.
"Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists."
I strongly disagree. There is no reason a list can't have Simple English. There is also no reason is can't have good writing. It wouldn't be the same as the enwiki list, it would be simpler english, the point of this wiki@Kk.urbanMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian OK I'm not going to remove my comment, or say that I have changed my mind, but people can ignore my comment if they want. If you think this is a good idea, then how about you write or improve a list so that it would qualify for "very good list" status? Then other users can look over it, and it can serve as an example. We could see where to go from there. Kk.urban (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Eptalon, there needs to be a focus on the current GA/VGA processes. I see no benefit of adding a VGL process. People can still write lists if they want to, without the need to make them featured. Yottie=talk=19:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KK, Yottie and Eptalon. This is a perfectly good idea, but there's no point enacting it to sit on a shelf and gather dust. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a VGL process taking away from GA/VGA. No article could be both, it's like by trying to get an article to VGL your preventing it from becoming a VGA. The purpose would be to have a standard for, idenify, and showcase, high quality lists. I see no reason that it would "sit on a shelf and gather dust".@Yottie@Darkfrog24Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Proposed good articles: look at when they were put up, and how much time has passed since then,without much changes? - VGL would be similar, except, as we are talking about "very good", times would be even longer. Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a smaller wiki and it would take a bit longer sometimes. Honestly, the GAN article waiting the longest on enwiki is significantly longer than ours so...Also, this is a wikipedia, theres no deadline, it's okay if things take time@EptalonMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I posted it here to ask what people thought. But I would imagine, if we made it, we get a bunch of VGL's. Using enwiki as an example, theres about as many featured lists and there are feautured articles@EptalonMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your point, I simply don't feel there is the appetite for further process. The idea isn't a bad one, but it's currently redundant. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the current situation still allows for users to write excellent lists. It just means there is no process to recognise them. Yottie=talk=16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. However a process to recognise them needs a way to determine what is high-quality. This gives a standard for people to try meet when improving lists, and then a way for people to notice and mark high-quality lists as such. It is not redundant. Something being redundant means it's not useful, a duplicate with no other purpose. This could be useful, and is not a duplicate, as lists can't be GA/VGA@YottieMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Superflous itself means more than sufficent/unneccessary. I disagree. What this (and GA/VGA) is going for is:
1.Standard For High Quality- This is covered by your above suggestion
2.Way To Identify And Display Quality Content - Not covered by your suggestion
3.Way For The Community To Determine If A Page Is High Quality - Sort of covered by your suggestion, not entirely
As you can see that misses a few stuff. As I see the opposition arguements are such
1.'We already have GA/VGA - These are not overlapping with a proposed VGL at all, how is this related
2.It's hard to make quality content - Of course it is, what sets it apart is that someone has put in the hard work to make it quality.
3.People add unrelated stuff on enwiki to make it a featured list - Please find 1 example. Irrelevant stuff should be removed, and a VGL process would not change that.
4.Lists will be the same as enwiki lists - Why? Is there any reason we couldn't simply a list too?
5.You can still write good lists - Of course, I can also write great articles without GA/VGA. Should we remove them
6.People eventually lose interest - True of everything, could be used as an arguement to get rid of this wiki as well.
7.It would be unused - Why? On enwiki there are about as many FLs as there are FAs
It's funny, having looked at Simple Talk archives, I realise I suggested VGLs 15 years ago on this very same page. Eptalon gave the same reasoning as he did above, and I think he still has a valid point. Not to discredit the points you make, but judging by the comments above I just don't think editors are all that bothered by the concept. --Yottie=talk=22:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny indeed. I see you've changed your mind. Note that I refuted all of Eptalon's points. Is there one of those you disagree with the reasoning/conclusions of?@YottieMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title should perhaps be, Twitter (renamed X), or X (Twitter), or "X (formerly Twitter)", or X /Twitter, or however media formats X-together-with-OldNameOfCompany.--Twitter has moved on, and changed its name (and we should move on, too); Therefore an updated encyclopedia does not get to choose at whim, that now we are arbitrarily going to use the company's old name (as title) without any qualifier (in the title).--If we have to choose between Simple and Wrong, then we should avoid "Wrong" - because we are an encyclopedia, so to speak. Thanks, 2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? Most still refer to it as Twitter. With a lot of the changes, it's best if we separate the historical twitter and the new X into two separate pages. And as we do not have much content on new X, we need to wait till more content to be added to the encyclopedia before creating a new page for X. Once separated into two pages, we can keep a note on top linking former to later and later to former. BRP ever17:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter is by far the W:COMMON NAME for an article for the topic. An article that they have on enwiki for specifically the period of X is very suitable for being renamed to that (especially against the convoluted name previous). We should keep as is (and, maybe put an article together to mimick the one for the Musk tenure). Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree whole-heartedly with your comment Lee - It's been Twitter for over 10 years and irrespective of rebrands I doubt it will change, I also agree with your comment regarding Musks tenure etc, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look to German-wiki, Netherlands-wiki, Danish-wiki, Norski-wiki - they have titles where Twitter is not a "thing" (or main thing, in one case).--Those are the five other wikipedia-versions that i mostly use - plus Norski-wiki.--Twitter is no longer the Common-name, in my country.--Most English-readers in the world, do not use that thingy, that formerly was called Twitter.--Twitter as only word (or first word) in title? No, the hour glass has almost run out of sand!--Has En-wiki chosen a simple option? Nah, maybe it was some kind of boomer-politics that were able to push their wishes, over there.--Anyway, everyone must try to show kindness during discussions (or so is my interpration of words from Jimbo Wales).--Has anyone bothered checking what the encyclopedia Britannica is calling their article? 2001:2020:359:ABC5:55DB:E31A:D27C:49BA (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:ABC5:79FD:3760:85EF:C9FC[reply]
I don't see how that would matter - COMMON NAME is what people call it, and most sources will refer to it as Twitter. Your argument of some of our inter language Wikipedias using a different title isn't great, but even if you were to use that as a rationale, most of our other language Wikipedias use Twitter rather than X. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)15:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with this, for now. I rarely see it referred to only as X, but as X, formerly known as Twitter, or as just Twitter (still). It still the common name, but in a few years as more people and style guidelines adapt it will be just X. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it it changes names again, we'll have ex-X, formerly known as Twitter and now PDQ, at which point the universe might implode from the madness... Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Madisyn Oglesby. I think your draft seems well-formatted and simple enough to be put into the mainspace. However, additional citations would help as well as some copyediting. Cyclonial (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.
You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.
If you are talking about insults and other bad stuff unrelated to the article content, then yes, it goes against Wikipedia rules and it's called vandalism. If you find vandalism, you should remove it, please. If you are talking other "sensitive" stuff that's related to the article (for example, an article about hunting may show images of dead animals and blood, another about human sexual organs will have pictures of them, etc), then no, it does not go against the rules, because Wikipedia is not censored. I hope this helps, but I am not sure what you mean by "obscene", because that is subjective (just like I do not find my examples to be obscene, but others may do). DreamIndigo20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: This is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not censored. Images are there to illustrate the subject. Note however, some images are better than others. If you think an image is not fitting, talk abot it on the talk page of the respective article. There were cases, were images got replaced by other images, after a discussion. And note: We think readers are responsible, and can cope with images that are there for illustration purposes. We also show images of women who aren't fully veiled... Eptalon (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments are mostly about images, but it also applies to language. In the article Profanity, there is a list of words that are often considered offensive. Since the article is explaining the words, not using them as expletives, that is appropriate. Use of such words could also be appropriate if they are in something being quoted. For both images and words, it depends on how they are being used. -- Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start! I fixed some small formatting issues - a period at the end of a sentence was bolded with the alternate name, and there was a reference before punctuation (references after sentences go after punctuation). The usage of 'founded' (as in 'to start something') is a bit complex, so I changed it with 'made', which is simpler. Thanks for making the article! 🤘🤘 DovahFRD (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Reflist and the official school website, I think the article is fantastic and is certainly a start, Thank you for creating the article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question about stub tags and reflist
Hello, I was just wondering whether the ref header and reflist go above or under a stub tag at the bottom of the page. I believe I have been alternating between both, but I would just like a solid answer for future edits. Thanks! Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the option to change the colors without changing the default ones, so everyone is happy now I also added Template:Userbox, because div tag userboxes look very bad on mobile. DreamIndigo10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New Category: English-language newspapers published in Oceania...
Hello, I have created this category, but I am still unclear, as to the following:
Indonesia seems to be South-east Asia, so do the Philippines
Papua-New Guinea seems to be Oceania, I guess the other part of the Island (which is Indonesian) is South-East Asia..
If anybody had time, couild they look at Eglish-language newspapers published in Asia and Oceania, and consolidate the two? Eptalon (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As of now, those two categories are underpopulated, but the issue will be solved as soon as we change both templates populating them. DreamIndigo12:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original category was about television in the US, so the new title is better as it is more specific. Either way, I have moved them now :) DreamIndigo23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving contents of Neck (body part) to Neck
Most people commonly refer to the body part when using the word "neck", so the disambiguation in the title wouldn't be necessary, unless I am missing something here. Any thoughts on this? Writing this at two in the morning so apologies for any confusion I may have caused. Cyclonial (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! We are the Wikimedia Foundation Web team.
We work on making it easier to read Wikimedia projects as part of the objective "Reading and media experience" of the current year’s annual plan. To achieve this goal, we have introduced the "Accessibility for Reading" beta feature. It adds a menu which works on the Vector 2022 skin and allows logged-in users to choose different font sizes and color schemes based on individual needs.
The menu introduces a new Standard font setting. It slightly increases the size and height of the font. It was selected based on multiple sources. You will find more information on this in the section "About the new Standard font setting".
What will change
We are now ready to make the new Appearance menu available for logged-out and logged-in users.
At the same time, we will also make the Standard option the new default for logged-out users only.
If no breaking technical issues are found, we plan on making this change within the next two weeks.
Later, this menu will also include the option to select dark mode, which for the time being will remain a beta feature. For more information, check out our project page.
About the menu
The new menu will allow logged-in and logged-out users to set preferences for:
Text size and line height (available now as a beta feature): Users will be able to choose between the Small (current default), Standard (recommended for better accessibility), and Large options. Selecting an option will change both the font size and line height of the text.
Dark mode (available now as a beta feature): Users will be able to choose to see the site in night mode on a permanent basis, or select an "automatic" setting which will set day or night mode based on the device or browser preferences.
Content width (previously available as a toggle button): We have moved the content width toggle from an icon at the bottom of the page to a labeled radio button in the new menu. It will work exactly the same as the toggle. The previous toggle button will no longer be available.
This menu has been tested as a beta feature by logged-in users across wikis as well as in user testing with readers. Based on the findings of these tests, we changed the menu to improve discoverability and ease of use, and to accommodate gadget compatibility.
The menu will appear to the right of the page, immediately under the Tools menu if that has been pinned. Unlike the Tools menu, the Appearance menu is pinned by default, but can be unpinned. Once unpinned, it collapses under an icon at the top of the page.
About the new Standard font setting
The "Small" option is the current default. We will be changing this default to "Standard" for logged-out users, while keeping "Small" as the default for logged-in users. The "Standard" and "Large" options were built and tested based on the following:
Academic studies and recommendations for the best average font size for the majority of readers. These recommendations stated that our current size is too small for the majority of people to read comfortably. This means that on average, people read more slowly, strain their eyes while reading, or have difficulty clearly seeing the text. Increasing the font size by default improves these issues for all users, including users who might not have sufficient time to spend adjusting a setting via the appearance menu or browser. Information density is also important, which is why we wanted to increase font size without sacrificing information density. We have achieved this by changing not only font size, but also line height and paragraph spacing.
Designs submitted by more than 630 Wikipedians from across 13 wikis of different languages, scripts, and sizes. The majority (~450) of these users opted for a font size that was larger than the default. "Standard" represents the average of the most popular cluster of responses (15-20 pixels). "Large" represents the need for an even larger option, as represented by the cluster of sizes between 21-26 pixels. You can read more on how we included volunteers in the process and landed on these options.
Beta feature usage showed that the majority of users who interact with the feature at least once opt for a font size that is larger than the current default.
Our works so far and next steps
Logged-in users will remain with the "small" setting for the time being as their default, but can change to any other setting at any time. In a few months, we will study how many logged-in users switch to standard and start a conversation on whether it makes sense for logged-in users to make the switch as well. From the early data from the beta feature, 55% of sessions who interacted with the feature chose to use a setting that was standard or larger.
If you'd like to help, we have a few simple requests for you:
Try out the new menu. Is anything confusing? Do you understand all the labels and how the menu works?
Try out the small, standard, and large sizes, the color schemes, and the width toggle. Reach out to us if you notice any bugs, or have questions or concerns.
Comment: The IP is also globally locked. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Done Thanks! DIVINE 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Weak oppose I don't think this will help improve Wikipedia much. On English Wikipedia, people often add a lot of text that is only vaguely related to the topic, so it can meet the standard for a featured list. If someone is just looking for the list, that may make it harder to read. Generally, lists are less likely than articles to showcase Simple English, good writing, and the other qualities we're trying to meet. In fact, some could be basically the same as the English Wikipedia lists.
I also added Template:Userbox, because div tag userboxes look very bad on mobile. Dream Indigo 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
