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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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.
Yep, back to normal now. The text however looks so large compared to the contents of the main page that quite frankly I think it's ugly. Cyclonical (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason all the words are bigger on my phone than yours, so "to" appears on a separate line. I do agree that "Welcome to Wikipedia" is too big. TitanicGlitter (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Judging by the history it appears to have been a vanity venue that never took off but nonetheless it was still part of history even if it was very short-lived, We're not gonna get 2009 back so should make the most of the precious history we have of that era. –Davey2010Talk17:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy as to who can become an oversighter is now at meta, and or candidates are listed on the page, where the candidates for the other privileges are listed; given that you need 25 support votes, getting the flag isn't easy. Eptalon (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My questions is: Is this content okay or should it all be removed and leave them looking like this diff?
Having this infomation in articles A) gives the impression we're a medication pamphlet as opposed to an encyclopedia, and B) I feel it could open doors to WMF being sued especially if someones followed the instructions here and it all went terribly wrong (I don't know much about the law so don't know if the WMF could be sued/held responsible etc)
Imagine if W;ChangingUsername unknowingly got the dosage wrong and someone reads it and assumes its correct and for instance takes 2 tablets instead of 1 - Of course I would hope no one would ever follow such instructions here but everyone is different, and taking into account the website we are and our viewers (whom may have mental disabilities and may not know better/different) it's a very stupid and dangerous game but I would like to seek others opinions before I go on a blanking spree,
@Davey2010: Thanks for raising this here. I had a conversation with the editor about this and I meant to get back to it but I haven't had a chance.
You are absolutely right. Wikipedia should not be giving instruction or advice about anything. In the case of medications, it's even more important because of the legal implications. Wikipedia is neither a how-to nor a medical provider. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove this kind of info. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Auntof6, You're welcome - I know I reverted this editors edits before somewhere and it resulted in one big drama so wanted to double check first,
I absolutely and 110% agree with your last statement and couldn't ever have put it any better myself - In all honestly I wonder if this editor is here for the wrong reasons but I guess that's another discussion for another venue, I'm genuinely shocked someone added this and thought it was okay but anyway I'll remove the content, Many thanks for your quick response/help it's greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the article also. Change it if you want, and if i think something could go in after, it can be changed back and forth to make good articles
Hi @W;ChangingUsername, Many thanks for remaining calm and patient - You're more than welcome to post here and ask editors if x, and y would be okay,
I'm not lecturing you but in case you weren't aware the Simple English Wikipedia is also for people with different needs, such as children, students, and adults with learning difficulties, and people who are trying to learn English and as I said those with mental disabilities whom may not understand may think it's okay to follow the instructions here,
I appreciate you expanding the articles and trying to be helpful but given the website we are and who we cater to I'm sure you can understand the seriousness and danger of including the information you have here, I would hate for the WMF or yourself to face legal ramifications over the content included/hosted, Anyway thanks again for remaining patient and calm throughout, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk20:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - As far as I can see I've removed all of the content from all articles, I've done various searches relating to keywords of the previous content and not getting any results so hoping i've removed all of the content, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk21:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W;ChangingUsername Too late - everything I listed above has now been deleted, You're more than welcome to start an RFC on having side effects listed here but given it's listed on any EN articles and given we're not a medical website - chances are there would be no consensus to host such information anyway, –Davey2010Talk22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what information would go into a wikipedia article, or why someone would search it, other than for things like effects/side effects, pharmacology, chemistry, pregnancy category and so on. Nor do i see what info could go in from a reference (like a paper from a study) besides these. It would be challenging to make long and informative articles without these info W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding information which English Wikipedia includes English Wikipedia includes most of this information, and I support restoring that. At the English Wikipedia Medical Manual of Style there are recommended section headings for drugs. "Side effects" is the same as "Adverse effects", "Medical uses" is always the first section and is "who can take it", "Dosage" English Wikipedia does not report and does not recommend including, "caution" is "drug interactions", and pregnancy goes in a section called "special populations" at the bottom although we frequently single out pregnancy as an extra-special, special case and put national regulatory pregnancy codes in the infobox. Overall most of this is essential information which is safe to include when backed by reliable sources. Talking through at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine could be helpful for confirming best practices. Everyone wants dosage also but the situation is that there is significant variation in medical recommendations country to country, in addition to the matter being very sensitive patient to patient. It is fine to talk generally about the effects of not enough, too much, or just write, but do not name numbers. Blue Rasberry (talk)17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against some of these simplifications. While "adverse effects" and "side effects" mean the same thing, "medical uses" and "who can take it" are two different things. "Drug interactions" and "caution" are two completely different things.
This is an issue, too, and goes back to what AuntOf6 and Davey2010 have mentioned. If we sound too much like a medication pamphlet, it is dangerous. Not only is it unencyclopedic, it can cause legal issues.
The word "drug interactions" was chosen because it is a medical term, and has a broader scope than most "cautions"; it includes a more encyclopedic scope of information. These medicine articles aren't made specifically for those who are taking the medication, these articles are made for those who want to learn more about the subject.
I bring this up mainly as a warning to be very careful when editing these articles. Even though something is true and is backed up by a source, it can still be dangerous if it disproportionately adds certain types of information. MrMeAndMrMeTalk20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally seperate idea:What if we just made a template to put on top of every medical related article with a disclaimer saying "We are not a doctor and don't trust any medical advice from here" or some variety of that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warning! The information given is not medical advice and may not be accurate. The contents are for illustrative purposes only and do not replace medical advice. Please read the disclaimer.
I'd rather it just be worded in ways that didn't tell people what to do but I guess if that cannot be achieved then sure I'd settle for a disclaimer, I mean there's nothing stopping anyone from finding the information online anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk11:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are phrased that way in the source. The article mentions in 'side effects' that in the medicine box there will be a pamphlet. There are a lot of sites for information online but simple wiki may be their only source. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what applies to any article, also applies to articles about drugs or diseases
Since anyone can edit, we cannot guarantee that the information given is accurate, or correct
Even if it is, making a diagnosis takes a healthcare professional. There's a reason people study 5 years or more to be a doctor of medicine, or a pharmacist (who knowns about drugs)
Even if the information is accurate, it might not apply in your specific case.
Side-effects can be very specific, the more "common" a side-effect is, the more likely you'll find it in the product brochure.
Wikipedia can be there for general information, but if you need more specific information ask your doctor/healthcare professional
Keeping that in mind, there is no harm in saying "With this condition, usually either drug A, B, or C are given. Drug A usually has these side-effects..." - Remember, we are an encyclopedia, there's no "forbidden knoweldge". Eptalon (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open – cast your vote[change source]
The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.
Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.
After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.
If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.
Just a quick question: why not keep the redirect? - Depending on where on earth you are, getting characters with accents/diacritics may be difficult..? Eptalon (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something is rotten in the "land" of Stars?[change source]
I suspect that Simple-wiki should come up with a checklist of things that should be done, when one starts an article about a star (or a star in Space).--Such a checklist should maybe have recommended sources, about "new et cetera" stars. Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA[reply]
In my opinion, such a checklist is generally not very neccessary — if someone wants to make a guide like this, they make it on their userspace, such as the one AuntOf6 made. Since many wikipedians have their own different opinions about what should be in an article, it is difficult to make a well made main page that goes beyond a simple idea such as to Be Bold. MrMeAndMrMeTalk14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2MASS J04285096-2253227 is a red-link (at English-wiki), and mentioned in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brown_dwarfs#Unconfirmed_brown_dwarfs . --I am thinking it should get USERIFY / USERFY, or be QD.--Please consider doing one or the other in a timely manner, so that the user will "get a message" that articles have to be of a certain standard, in stead of flooding us with half-a$$ sub-stubs. 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are notable per en:NASTRO or en:NASTCRIT. This is fairly obviously not notable, but I am not sure that it necessarily falls under QD. Would it be possible for an admin to mass delete these pages, or does it all have to be put through RFD?(or maybe just one RFD page for all of IP's articles?) MrMeAndMrMeTalk15:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather awkwardly, a few of the articles actually are based on subjects that are notable. So some checking will have to be done the manual (painful) way. --Ferien (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user that started the articles, last edited at 13:03, 26 June 2024.--If possible, consider tagging most of the articles, in regard to notability.--I am thinking that we should see if we can accent the positives, so to speak, in regard to that wikipedia-user.--So, any QD can wait a day or two or a half week, in my view. (As long as articles have relevant tags.) --Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another update: WOH G17, was created at 16:58 .--En-wiki has deleted their article (not notable); link, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WOH_G17 .--That article should be QD for not being encyclopedic and/or not being wikified.--USERFY? I would not bother with that article. 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) /OP[reply]
What you are saying, and what i said, are two different things.--No worries, I expect that any answer at English-wiki will be illuminating (and quite possibly helpful for this thread too).--I suggest we wait and see where the chips may fall. 2001:2020:301:A9E4:D9A9:D130:F839:7819 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three people have (so far) answered at En-wiki.--None of them have said that the titles are wanted over there. (And one said that it is best not to create the bunch of titles.)--The sources for many of the articles, also suck.--Good luck fixing the articles (or whatever), while i fix other articles. 2001:2020:301:A9E4:99F2:4A71:53B8:9057 (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA[reply]
Once again - the English language Wikipedia isn't a controlling instance of what we may or may not have here.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ IP blocked for a week, while we work out what to do with the articles for the moment. --Ferien (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution: if a title also exists (as a title) at En-wiki, then be gentle.--For the other articles, press the switch that says "Czar bomb" (or nuke).--Please note that there are dubious entries on (astronomy) Lists at En-wiki. (For elaboration, see
@Cactusisme: If I understand correctly what you're talking about, I've seen that happen when I reply to something on a page -- all the "reply" links disappear. I was able to fix it by clearing the cache of the page. en:Help:Purge explains different ways of doing that. Let me know if you need more help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dark mode for logged-out users coming soon![change source]
Hi everyone, for the past year, the Web team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been working on dark mode. This work is part of the Accessibility for Reading initiative that introduces changes to the Vector 2022 and Minerva skins. It improves readability, and allows everyone, both logged-out and logged-in users, to customize reading-focused settings.
Since early this year, dark mode has been available as a beta feature on both the mobile and the desktop website. We have been collaborating with template editors and other technical contributors to prepare wikis for this feature. This work included fixing templates and ensuring that many pages can appear with dark mode without any accessibility issues. We would like to express immense gratitude to everyone involved in this. Because so much has been done, over the next three weeks, we will be releasing the feature to all Wikipedias!
Deployment configuration and timeline
Tier 1 and 2 Wikipedias: wikis where the number of issues in dark mode when compared to light mode is not significant. These wikis will receive dark mode for both logged-in and logged-out users. Some small issues might still exist within templates, though. We will be adding ways to report these issues so that we can continue fixing templates together with editors.
Tier 3 Wikipedias: wikis where the number of issues in dark mode when compared to light mode is significant. These wikis will only receive dark mode for logged-in users. We would like to make dark mode available to all users. However, some wikis still require work from communities to adapt templates. Similar to the group above, these wikis will also receive a link for reporting issues that will help identify remaining issues.
Week of July 1: mobile website (Minerva skin) on the Tier 1 Wikipedias (including simple English Wikipedia)
Week of July 15: desktop website (Vector 2022 skin) on all Wikipedias; mobile website: logged-in and logged-out on the Tier 2 Wikipedias, logged-in only on the Tier 3 Wikipedias
How to turn on dark mode
The feature will appear in the Appearance menu alongside the options for text and width. Depending on compatibility and technical architecture, some pages might not be available in dark mode. For these pages, a notice will appear in the menu providing more information.
How to make dark mode even better!
If you would like to help to make more pages dark-mode friendly, go to our previous message and see the section "What we would like you to do (template editors, interface admins, technical editors)".
It definitely needs some simplifying. I've left some comments about that on the article's talk page. If you have any questions or response, leave it there and I'll see it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Madonna is quite clearly the primary topic in this case. We follow enwiki's policies/guidelines as guidelines, and therefore, there's a good reason to move the page here. Your opinion may differ but you don't seem to offer a reason other than I don't like it and want to differ with en. --Ferien (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Madonna isn't going to be a primary topic, or close, in this case. It is not ever referred to as Madonna. I find it quite difficult to call this ethnocentrism because what else on this is realistically going to be the primary topic in any other country and Madonna just being called Madonna is a thing for many language Wikipedias, not just enwiki by any means, even if Madonna is American. --Ferien (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some meanungs to the disambigaion page. As we have it currently, it is ok. At the top of the pages we list the two most common meanings, and the disambiguation page Eptalon (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Madonna (name) is arguably the main topic (though we seem to not have that article).--See the following link for all the famous (or well-known) people with the name. Link,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_(name) .--As of the 2010s she still was having number one hit songs - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_singles_discography#2010s .--Anyway, she is just another famous person among other famous people with the name "Madonna". 2001:2020:345:A57A:9C73:2FCC:27A6:77ED (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a lot of people have a name doesn't make it the PRIMARYTOPIC. This is a very clear instance of the most relevant article for that search being the singer. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the page move-suggester, I never expected or imagined there would be drama over it - A few points to note:
A) As noted by all of my fellow colleagues above it's blindingly obvious Madonna is the primary topic here - She's Primarytopic on EN too which sparked this move,
B) We follow ENs policies and guidelines and as I said given she's primarytopic there (en:Madonna) it's pretty obvious she should be here too,
C) How is this Ethnocentrism ?, I'm British and personally speaking I don't like her music so herself and her culture are absolutely irrelevant to me and I can easily vouch and say her culture etc is irrelevant to everyone here too,
Strange Lua errors on "Simple English" pages[change source]
I was just reading through the article on the Kilogram using the Android app. Underneath the heading "Mass and weight", the following message is shown:
Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Leonidlednev Rapes Babies on Wheels' not found.
I cannot help but feel like this is somehow an attempt at vandalism. I tried to change the page to remove the vandalism, but I was unable to find any reference to this script.
Is this a normal error message? I wish I could be of more help and remove it, but I am not familiar enough with the edit side of the platform to know where this message is coming from.
@Korimo update: it is template vandalism, though it has been removed now. See Special:Contributions/Lua Module Smasher for an example. We might need a way of making sure our Lua modules aren't modified like this, though there will probably be a lot of modules to handle. Also, it's very sad that the vandalism is now on Google. Hopefully it will be removed soon. —76.212.74.243 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC) (comment edited at 01:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I had the same thing happen a couple weeks ago. I made a edit on the page I was on and pushed publish and it worked for me. It's from some guy vandalising a module or something. - MourningRainfall 🐺🇨🇦 01:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back; none of those pages show the problem any longer - maybe someone server-side was able to purge the cache? It still comes up in search results but I can't find a page that loads with the problem any more. Antandrus (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be changed or kept on a case by case basis. "Diaspora" has a different meaning than "emigration". They are not the same thing. ✩ DreamIndigo ✩15:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but in nearly every context they cover the same topics. An article about emigration from a nation can easily be merged with an article of that nation's ethnic diaspora. This was done in en wiki with Emigration from the United States. Diaspora is a type of emigration, which is why it would make sense for them to be in the same articles. MrMeAndMrMeTalk17:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"changed or kept on a case by case basis", sounds okay.--My guess, is that this discussion will not agree on any single category, or article-title, being changed.--Specific examples ain't gonna sound good, or look good: that is my prediction. 2001:2020:317:BD4D:F071:1980:AA23:EFAC (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where to indent this comment, but I want to make some examples. Something like "American diaspora" can be easily merged to "Emigration from the United States", but what about the Jewish diaspora? "Jewish emigration" does not explain its history well, it basically waters it down. The article should explain the meaning of "diaspora", though. A diaspora is a complex phenomenon. The two words are not synonyms, this is what I mean. In most cases, we can use "emigration", but not always. ✩ DreamIndigo ✩19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that I do not see why "Jewish emigration" does not explain the issue well. In theory, diaspora is a type of emigration.
For example, instances in which Jewish individuals have been separated, forced out of a place, moved to another location, etc can be explained by emigration to another location MrMeAndMrMeTalk20:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the pattern of movement for Jews is very much more complex than for other peoples. The movements of their ancestors is still significant hundreds of years later. For most other people they are eventually absorbed into the new culture. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the complex pattern of movement of peoples over time is, at its core, moving from one place to another.
The idea of "Jewish emigration" can mean a variety of things throughout history, all of which fundamentally resulted from moving from one place to another(whether intentional or forced/displaced, whether once or multiple ). MrMeAndMrMeTalk21:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we likely need both. Imagine, that some people emigrate, for whatever reason. Then there is a 'community of foreigners' in another country. Over time (their parents emigrated, their grandparents did), what is left is a 'diaspora'. Happened in many cases, not only to Jews, but also people emigrating for other reasons. The German-speaking communities in Romania, in Russia, In South America are just examples. So, likely it needs explaining, and we need both concepts, and cannot do with one of them alone. Eptalon (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A diaspora is much more than moving from a place to another. If I move to France tomorrow because I like Paris, that is "emigration". No loss of culture, famines, wars or genocides involved, yet it is emigration. A diaspora, to put it as simple as possible, needs some sort of tragic background to happen (not always, but most of the time). If you want a much better definition, then "William Safran set out six rules to distinguish diasporas from migrant communities and Rogers Brubaker more inclusively applied three basic definitional criteria" (copied from enwiki, cannot copy more due to copyright).
P.S. I really hope this does not come out as rude. I sometimes sound mad for no reason in written text, but I do not know how to fix that. I am relaxed while writing this, not mad at all ✩ DreamIndigo ✩21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article "Diaspora": It has c. none of the (good) information from this thread.--Anyone (or myself) can add info.--By the way: in my North European language, the largest encyclopedia has one article about Jewish diaspora, and one article about Diaspora.--If i see anything okay to add, then i probably will. 80.67.37.2 (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)/ 80.67.37.2 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead is problematic then I don't really know how to trim it down/make it simple enough so didn't know if anyone had any suggestions, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few changes to make it a bit more simple to read. I know nothing about busses, so you'd have to re-add bits about the high-floorness, whatever that is. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You @sir are amazing thank you so much for your help and edits they're greatly appreciated, I've added the high/low floor back but it's absolutely perfect thank you, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk20:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I tend to think the lede sentence should always just say what the subject is in plain terms (that's true on all Wikis). It's almost always too in depth. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're talking about in general but unfortunately up until now I always thought my lead sentences did say what the subject is in plain terms but then again I wasn't aware of that website so didn't know any better and didn't have anything to guide me other than Wikipedia:BASIC English alphabetical wordlist and assumption/guess work,
I'll be honest I was taken aback by your edits (in a good way) and they've genuinely opened my eyes - Anyway we live and we learn - I'll fix the rest of my articles this week,
Hi! I am writing a biography and I re-read WP:MOS and en:WP:MOSBIO, but I am still confused about nationality wikilinks in the first sentence. Which one is correct?
1. Pinco Pallo was an Italian person.
2. Pinco Pallo was an [[Italy|Italian]] person.
3. Pinco Pallo was an [[Italians|Italian]] person.