Wikipedia:Simple talk

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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Notability for temples?

We have several new articles on Hindu temples. What are the notability guidelines for this kind of thing? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think each article should establish its own notability. Historical, architectural, religious... One can't just say "X is a temple in Y". Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not my culture, so I can't say much. Even though in the western world, almost every village has some kind of "church", some of these churches are more notable / important than others. Most of the time, the importance comes from history, and from the significance the religion attaches to it. I very much think tthat religious communities such as the Sikh, the Shino, the Hndu or the Buddhist will have similar rules. Those interested should prioritize, and create the more important ones first..--Eptalon (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for using the word prioritize, which I think is a key idea. Since we can't do everything, we should encourage editors to do those topics which are most significant in the areas they are interested in or knowledgeable about. Such pages are likely to attract the most readers, and to be most noticed if they are absent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Complaint

I have complained on [1] about DYK Queue #2. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Singlechart template

Would someone look at template {{Singlechart}}? It's not formatting correctly. It's leaving two right-brackets on the peak chart position. You can see an example in the template's doc page, here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Osiris (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Help for mangled categorization

I made this mess and I just can't walk away and leave it all uncorrected. I added a reference to Centrebus Leicestershire, so I changed the flag from unref to refimprove with date of February 2013. After saving I noticed a category had appeared in red for Articles needing additional references from February 2013. So I thought that I would create the category, thinking it didn't yet exist if I was the first to date the flag for February. Not brilliant since I've never created a category. After I created it, I then tried to add it to the category "Articles needing additional references". For some reason that appeared in red, so I added it to category: "All articles needing additional references". That's still not right, because it's not a subcategory and the only one there. It needs to go to "Articles needing additional references" where all the other months are happily living. The category now appears in the main (not hidden) categories in the Centrebus article with no way to delete or change it. And I have these new category pages with no way to move them to where they really belong: parent and child. Sorry for being so wordy and please help. I'll not try this again... Fylbecatulous talk 17:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Creol(talk) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I so thank you ツ Fylbecatulous talk 18:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Racepacket's unblock request

Racepacket has requested that he be unblocked. Personally, I'm willing to give him another chance; I was about to grant his request but then I saw that it was said last year that the block could be "overturned by further community discussion", so discuss away. -Mh7kJ (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as you surely know, I was never really in favour of banning him and would also like to see Racepacket unblocked. I think he's learnt his lesson and will do it better. So I support an unblock. -Barras talk 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing about Racepacket is that he quite possibly made one of the worst comments I have ever seen on any wiki. So bad in fact it had to be oversighted so can't be discussed. Until such time that en sees fit to allow him back I don't think we should even remotely consider allowing him back. And seeing as how he just last month was socking on en. I don't see that happening any time soon. And yes I know we are not en but his case is a pretty major case with some pretty bad abuses. I really think this is a case where deferring to them is useful. And that doesn't even bring into account the issue he was having with copying articles over and never simplifying them which he was getting close to being blocked for as well. -DJSasso (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Strange how you want to follow en here, but in another thread in ANI you're keen to reject any influence from them... Actually its not strange given what is to gain for you... Anyway, the fact the comment is oversighted makes it difficult for the community at large to decide. If we don't know the crime how can we decide? A year is definitely a suitable timescale for another try with one further 'one strike' offer. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that his comment was way over-the-line, but a year is a long time and a re-block isn't a difficult thing to do should the need arise, and to be honest I don't think it will; I trust that it won't happen again. As for the copy-pasting, we could remind him that if he is going to create more articles he should bring them over one at a time and simplify each one before moving on to the next one, instead of creating loads and not being able to simplify them. It might also be a good idea to have someone else review the article for simplicity before it is moved out of his userspace and into the mainspace (just an idea; I'd be willing to review them). If the copy-pasting with minimal simplification continues, then like above, a re-block isn't difficult. For the sockpuppetry thing, what happens on the English Wikipedia should, in my opinion, stay there. We should concentrate on what's happened on this wiki. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I merely pointed out eptalons misunderstanding of arbcom in that thread. I have always said actions on other wiki's play some role or else we wouldn't have thinks like the one strike rule here. As for his actions here he sexually harassed an editor here. Pretty major for a project partially aimed at kids. I believe there was stalking of a minor involved as well but that may have been more at en and off wiki of course. That isn't a oh is been a year welcome back type of of fence. If you want to know the crime go and read his arbcom case at en. He did the same thing here. Just can't comment on exactly how he did the same thing here since it is oversighted. -DJSasso (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Something said in frustration can certainly be forgiven after a year and Racepacket is entitled to take advantage of the standard offer. However, I would really like to see some kind of verbal commitment from him to make a more concerted effort to simplify his derivative works. That was the issue that started all of the problems, and which was never resolved in the discussion linked. I'd prefer not to see any repeat concerns over that. Osiris (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Some form of probational period for article creation (such as the kinds Mh7kJ mentions above) would be a good idea, if Racepacket can agree to it. Osiris (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Extra terms would make this more difficult: If he is unblocked, mention the problems and point out that if they re-occur, they are reason for blocking, then usual porcedure: warn,block...--Eptalon (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I never saw the oversighted comment, so I can't really say anything about that other than it must have been pretty bad. We've been down the warn, mentor, caution road with the copy and pastes before and in the end it made no difference. I understand the "what happens on En, stays on En" sentiment, but the only things we have to go on are behavior elsewhere. RP cites his work on "Wikimedia Movement" etc. If that counts, then so does En. Socking on En within the last month is not a good sign. Unblocking at this time seems like a bad idea to me. Gotanda (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

With what I'm proposing, the articles would not go live (i.e. be moved into the mainspace) until someone has reviewed and made sure it's simple enough; Racepacket wouldn't be able to do it himself without a review, so the copy-pasting shouldn't be a problem if my suggestion is accepted. About the sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia: as long as there has been no sockpuppetry here, then I'm comfortable with unblocking. -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed. Racepacket was banned for abuse. This is the issue that needs to be addressed. The problems he created with copy/paste and non-simple English, while frustrating and time consuming, were not the reason he was banned. Only if we can be sure that he has learned or will not do it again then we should consider letting him back under the editing restrictions that were previously in place.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, Peter. The copying was less important than the abuse. That is a pretty high fence as DJ mentioned above. In that context, socking on En gives me no confidence at all that RP is ready. Gotanda (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely against his return, and I think his behaviour as an editor was extremely damaging to us. No-one, I think, in the history of this wiki has put up such unsuitable pages, and been so completely resistant to all attempts to get him to change his ways. Yes, that was not what he was banned for. But consider this: if he was a dreadful editor as well as the behaviour for which he was banned, how much the more should we beware of him. So he has socked on En in the last month? Doesn't that say something? It does to me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As usual, I am moved by the practical reasoning of Macdonald-ross. However, I do not accept with conclusory judgment of the initial clause. I do not question the predicate argument which may be valid or reasonable. I just don't know. --Jinki (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the following excerpts are coming together in the process of consensus-building:

What makes consensus? consensus-building?

Consensus = (a) a process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members; and (b) general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.

Restating the argument, I agree and support the consensus reasoning and points-of-view above which seem move in the same direction, including

• Mh7kJ here: "... willing to give him another chance"
• Barras here: "... never really in favour of banning him and would also like to see Racepacket unblocked ...."
• Kennedy here: "A year is definitely a suitable timescale for another try ...."
• Osiris here: "... frustration can certainly be forgiven after a year and Racepacket is entitled to take advantage of the standard offer.."
• Peterdownunder here: "... I think the point is being missed ... that he has learned or will not do it again"

Taken together, these comments are a consensus which is not difficult to understand , to accept and to follow. The consensus above boils down to something like "okay" or "if he wants to contribute, okay". In my view, "okay" misses the point.

Stepping back from the scenario DJSasso alone has contrived, I urge others to join me in recognizing that SEWP needs Racepacket's voice. I would go even further by pointing out that SEWP has been harmed by the absence of this clear voice during the past year.

This 2012 diff here and this 2013 thread here present inexplicable examples of DJSasso's bad judgment. This bad judgement is the central fact of the matter regardless of whether I write about it or not.

No matter what Racepacket did or did not do, DJSasso was wrong to do what he did. Perhaps some other administrator might have banned Racepacket, but we will never know. We don't even know what the ban was really about ... and that is precisely what this discussion thread manages to obscure.

What we do know -- and the only thing that I knew in February 2012 -- was that Racepacket was brave enough to ask reasonable questions about DJSasso's judgment.

DJSasso had a history of heated disagreements with Racepacket, including here and here. This made DJSasso especially unsuited to use his administrator's tools to ban Racepacket.

For extra clarity and emphasis, let me say the same thing again in different words: Even if Racepacket might have been banned by someone other than Barras, it remains a fact that DJSasso was quite wrong to do what he did.

In effect, this 2013 thread is about endorsing DJSasso's decision-making. I do not support DJSasso's bad judgment.

My view is that DJSasso's failure to exercise appropriate judgment is the first thing we need to consider. It is not a "given" or an axiom that we should take for granted. In the unique context which DJSasso alone creates, the fact of the matter is that questions about Racepacket's judgement are a secondary issue.

In other words, this thread starts at the wrong place. It puts a spotlight on the wrong issue.

Yes, there is consensus for welcoming Racepacket among us.

More important, this thread needs to produce a statement of consensus that DJSasso was wrong to do what he did.

Why? DJSasso's ban of Racepacket intimidated me in 2012. This 2012 ban said to me that DJSasso feels free to use his administrative tools to ban anyone who shows the temerity to disagree with him about anything. I was scared. I was confused and worried about what happened to Racepacket.

I continue to be intimidated by DJSasso, but I am also unwilling to be the same kind of silent bystander I was in February 2012.

For me, Racepacket's return is not optional, not insignificant -- it is a good thing. It is essential despite the critical comments of Gotanda and Macdonald-ross above.

Racepacket, please accept that I apologize to you for being silent in 2012. I didn't understand. I didn't know what was needed. I didn't know what I could do and I didn't know how to parse the issues. --Tenmei / Horeki / Ansei ... and now Jinki (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jinki, you're citing only the statements on one side of the question, ignoring the others, then claiming that they constitute a consensus. It doesn't work that way. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Auntof6 -- I do specifically acknowledge the opinions of Gotanda and Macdonald-ross ... and I do reject the legitimacy of DJSasso's self-serving gloss. That said, I reject the notion that the tail wags the dog. No, Auntof6, I have not made a mistake or a mistatement. --09:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Auntof6 and others -- Please note that I have added bold to my apology to Racepacket above.

I do not suggest that Racepacket shall be elevated as a saint of the Catholic church, but I am moved by the claim that he is willing and able to be a constructive contributor to our SEWP project. --Jinki (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Racepacket's block, and not about Djsasso's block action made on 7 Feb 2012. I for one endorsed the block as you can see in the AN thread (linked earlier in the discussion). If you think Djsasso's block was unjustified I expect you to similarly comment on my lack of judgement when I endorsed that particular block, and also comment on sonia's block when Racepacket made that edit with the libelous edit summary.

I also want to mention further that you missed Peterdownunder's point completely - Peterdownunder has concerns over the abuse that Racepacket has demonstrated. You are currently quoting him selectively and trying to skew it such that he approves of an unblock, which is not the intention of that comment. Please leave the job of determining consensus to administrators. If I see such things again I shall consider it as an act of bad faith meant to disrupt the project and will not hesitate to consider a block. Chenzw  Talk  11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And moving back to the discussion here... Racepacket mentioned that he has been "planning and executing Wikimania and (making constructive contributions) in my local chapter". Is anyone able to verify this? Chenzw  Talk  11:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chenzw, I was thinking all of the same things you mentioned. But I did not want to comment because I felt the sidetracking was taking away from this current discussion. As you say the block was endorsed in the community discussion linked to above. Not to mention if it hadn't have been, any admin could have undone my action and none did. I was actually asked by a number of people to make the block. So as Chenzw says lets please turn our attention to the actual matter at hand which is whether he should be unblocked or not. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jinki, you wrote "In effect, this 2013 thread is about endorsing DJSasso's decision-making." but I would like to say that my response is solely based on Racepacket's behavior. I have not considered RP's or DJSasso's motivations. I undertand that you feel intimidated. This is not about endorsing DJSasso. It is about Racepacket's behavior on the wiki. They are separate concerns. I can say that Racepacket should not be unblocked, but that that is not an endorsement of any other editor's opinion. Let's continue working. Gotanda (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Gotanda -- yes, thank you for parsing the issues as you have done. Let's keep working. --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Responding in alphabetic order,

@ Auntof6 -- yes, thank you. This discussion thread is about good judgment? Are we not -- each of us -- trying to be a catalyst for good judgment? Is this a context in which bystanders are wanted? Let's keep working. --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Judgment = being able to make good choices
• Catalyst = someone who encourages progress or change.
• Bystander = a person who, although present at some event, does not take part in it; an observer or spectator

@ Barras -- I want to join you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us. What can we do together? --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Chenzw -- no, thank you. Please give some thought to words which have become meaningful to me since Racepacket was banned. "Fear has its use but cowardice has none." Let's keep working. --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ DJSasso -- yes, thank you. It is helpful that you summarize "lets please turn our attention to the actual matter at hand which is whether he should be unblocked or not." There will be times when some people do not agree. Everyone's beliefs should be discussed, but there still may be some people who will not compromise. This does not mean that there is no consensus. Let's keep working. --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Eptalon -- I want to join you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us. What can we do together? --Jinki (talk)

@ Kennedy -- I want to join you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us. What can we do together? --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Madonald-ross -- yes, thank you. In response to your concerns, please think again about what Mh7kJ proposes here. Would your view be modified if I volunteer to join Mh7kJ efforts to help Racepacket? Would your opinion change if Racepacket agreed to work with Mh7kJ and me? Let's keep working. --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Mh7kJ -- I want to join you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us. What can we do together? --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Osiris -- I want to join you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us.What can we do together? --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Peterdownunder -- I want to join you in creating a consensus made up of the two of us.What can we do together? --Jinki (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The main question here is if Racepacket has learned anything from his past actions, grown and made changes after being blocked. Obviously, we have no direct proof here one way or the other. He claims work with the Wikipedia Movement, but there is nothing proving that positive action. On the negative side, unfortunately, we do have evidence of a lack of change. En: is En:, but this is really all we have to look at. The issue I see there isn't even really the socking. It is what he used the sock to do. A year later, he is still going after the editor who most of his issue involve (not involved - issues are still there). On January 30, the IP which got a year block due to a CU report on him made these edits. Less than 2 weeks ago, he was still continuing his harassment which lead to his year block in the first place. If he has not changed enough to avoid a history of harassing a user as recent as 2 weeks ago, how can we expect he has changed enough to permit him to return here? --Creol(talk) 20:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(inb4 en is en:Just because a Micheal Jackson never abused children in my neighborhood doesn't mean I would have wanted him near my kids - A predator is a predator. --Creol(talk) 20:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

Currently, we can't tell how Racepacket will behave if he is unblocked. All we have is a shadow on a wall (i.e. his behaviour on EnWP). Unless we lift the ban, we will not be able to judge how he might possibly behave. As I pointed out further up, this lifting is a complete lifting of any sanctions against him. I don't have the time or nerve to watch over other users, either they behave in an acceptable manner, or they face the consequences of not doing so. Jinki: This is a discussion about whether to give Racepacket another chance. It is not about what DJSasso did or didn't do...--Eptalon (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Creol on this - how can we reasonably expect him to contribute constructively if the harassment which led to him being initially blocked is still ongoing? EN may be EN, but this is one of the situations in which I would not want an editor known to harass others, to return to this community - especially so when the block made over here was in direct response to harassment (again) of said editor. Chenzw  Talk  08:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If the allegations brought up by DJsasso are true, then I do not want to see Racepacket unblocked. Yottie ^=talk= 09:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Per the comments made by Creol, I can't support an unblock. If, a year had gone by and nothing else questionable had happened, then most certainty I think I would welcome him back under some sort of strike system. However, that's not the case.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has slowed and it appears that no real consensus has been reached. I'd echo statements above that although a year block from here would be enough for me, the actions he has shown elsewhere are not good. I would not support an unblock at this time. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Without him actually editing here, we cannot really tell whether Racepacket has changed. At the moment though, it looks to me most people who commented here are against giving him the chance of editing. I would therefore propose that he remains banned, and if need be, makes another request in six months....? --Eptalon (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for new edit notice

I've been trying to clean up the categories with fewer than three entries. Could we create an edit notice for creating categories that explains the requirement for three entries? It would be used like {{BLP editintro}}, only for this purpose instead of for BLPs. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Article wizard

Over a week ago, an anonymous user (37.0.123.17) copied a few of the English Wikipedia's Article Wizard pages over to here. I asked the user whether they had any further plans for them, but they haven't responded and no further edits or imports have been made. I'm not fully familiar with how it works over there or how successful it is, but basically... it shows new and unregistered users the policies on creating a new article and then, when they've read it all, they write their draft and it's then submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation to be reviewed by more experienced users.

Obviously, we don't currently have an AFC process and we don't require editors to be registered in order to create pages (unlike the English Wikipedia). But I must admit: in theory, a step-by-step wizard like this could bring benefits for our project if it's well constructed. The closest thing we have at the moment, is Wikipedia:Requested pages, which is not really much of an encouragement to contribute.

I was going to just ask whether I can delete the pages, and I guess I still am (they're just copy-pastes that lead nowhere). But it also got me thinking about the benefits of a process through which new users can be guided to writing drafts for potential publishing. As most of us probably know, our policies are a bit daunting when you first start editing and that wizard system looks like it'd be a lot more encouraging than publishing it in the main space only to have it quickly tagged for deletion...

I realise the last thing we want at the moment is another project page we have to keep up with (we have enough on our hands with featured content submissions sitting around for months without review). This is not really a proposal since I don't have the time to create anything like this at the moment. Just thought I'd see what people thought about it. Osiris (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea behind Article Wizard is good and constructive. It would probably take quite a bit of thought to adapt it to our needs. A first step would be, as you hint, to get an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses from experience on English wiki. But if we are not going to pursue this right along to an actual decision, it would be best to leave it alone. We have spent a lot of time discussing issues on other central pages without any decisions resulting, even though there is an acknowledged need for change. I might mention the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles as an example. Many good points are made in discussions, but we are certainly lacking when it comes to making decisions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page in regards to that outstanding discussion. It does need resolving. Osiris (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the en wizard and have used it myself when creating page there. I think something similar would work well here, probably for new unconfirmed and ip creations. It will be no more work than there is currently in either deleting them or cleaning them up (and the wizard might mean there is even less), and this way they won't be in the main space till roughly ready. We are doing something similar with patrolling new pages, this could make it easier.Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a plan. I think it is a good idea. Even if we decide not to go down the final review steps, the basic intro stuff is valuable to help new editors. I will translate the pages that have been brought over so far. This will give people a chance to look at them in our context. Then I am happy to continue. It seems to be a valuable way of supporting new editors and getting better outcomes here. Peterdownunder (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The only real issue I have with the process is articles sitting forever never being finished/fixed and never being deleted. This is a problem I see at en where they will sit years because they never get deleted or moved to article space. If someone is going to keep a close eye on it and do purges now and then that is great. Otherwise it has the potential to just hide problematic pages from detection where if they just created them directly into article space they might be caught. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Weather boxes

Hi, about these weather boxes, is there a place where I can play around with them without interfering with wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakeboardin (2) (talk • contribs) 02:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You can do that in Template:Weather box/sandbox. Osiris (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)