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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

Red flags of science (popping up again)

Ambipolar electric field - please consider de-publishing or USERFY.

(This article makes me about as uncomfortable as the one that i wrote about in July: That thread was 'Please remove a false statement (about Chemistry) from an article'.)--Justification: thousands of hours studying science, gives me a feeling that something (or much) in the Ambipolar electric field article is not right.--FWIW - I doubt that our article will be regarded as having redeeming qualities, if one asks En-wiki if that article could be of interest to them (and they do not have that title). 2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering that most of the sources that talks about it came about recently and the fact that this was just recent discovery (the NASA article as of writing is just one day ago), I highly doubt that this article will be suitable for English Wikipedia as per the lack of in-depth coverage of the subject. Maybe giving it more time to have more coverage? But as of now, it's best to just de-publish the article given that it has no article yet in en-wiki. AsianStuff03 (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:AsianStuff03 brings up some excellent points.--For now, i do not think it would be enough to tag the article (with any number of tags).--Perhaps we could move the mention, to the relevant article about the blah-blah-sphere of the atmosphere (the one which is at one hundred and umpteen km/miles above the Earth's surface).--With the current article, i think that we are running the risk of it becoming a milestone in a negative way. Perhaps not unlike, The Emperor's New Clothes.--Anyone has my support in nominating the article for Delete (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765

Hi, have you thought about starting a WP:RfD? ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that another Wikipedia (English or any other Wik) does not have an article on this topic is irrelevant. We are an separate Wik and not some sort of daughter of the English Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

However, anyone is welcome to suggest the contents of our article, to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics .--Not even their "ten-foot pole cabinet", will be opened in connection with that. At least not this month.--Me? I will be busy fixing other articles, and sniffing out other dubious (or even not-yet-ready-to-be-wikiPublished) stuff. Good luck! 2001:2020:30B:CC99:61FD:DB12:D4B2:6879 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• "This change in electric potential energy [sic] is just the right amount to explain the supersonic solar wind."--This sentence has at least two areas that ('might') need work (and at some point one would also have to make wiki-links).--Suggestion: Anyone can write an article about the rocket taking off and splashing down (and then anyone can fill in (or dabble) about the scientific observations done while the rocket was underway). That article would quite possibly be a 'keeper'.--As for our (bad-science article or) 'science' article, one would need a nomination for Delete, before I 'can' 'bus in' more science experts to also look at why we should not keep the article (and likely not keep the title, either).--Good luck (while i am working on other articles, and looking out for nomination for Delete). 2001:2020:335:9888:29BA:2379:7311:EB0B (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765
  
  Clarification: Suggestion: Anyone can write a new article about the rocket taking off and ... .--Another thing: canvassing is not permitted, of course. 2001:2020:335:9888:C5F3:A2A:1C92:A271 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC) //2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765

  Hello IP, with very few exception, anyone can write an article on anything they like, in Wikipedia. As to the article:

  • there is a site of NASA, explaining it; it also has a nicve (fairly recent) explanation video, see here
  • I find scientific artilces about the effect, the oldest one from 1955, see here

  The article itself is in simple language, so what reason is there to delete or userify it?

  So if you think it should be deleted, make a request; but in my vew, this is a legitimate, simple article Eptalon (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I try to check, once every week, if the article has been nominated for Delete.--Taking it from that point (a prospective nomination), will be fine.--Chances are, the article will then crash and burn.--Then the (de-published) article will become a benchmark of sorts, and will serve as a warning of sorts, about one way we might not be taking care of things, in the future.--Train wrecks reach a point, when it is too late to stop (one might say).--It would be possible to take the article (verbatim), and put the title as a section, in some existing article; As a last section in the Arctic area article, will not make the situation go from bad to worse, one might claim.--However, the money shot (so to speak) will be the results from the (prospective) Delete discussion. 2001:2020:351:A342:D51B:FEDC:4A2A:7B37 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Update: Things that were not true, were removed from the article, over half a week ago (and the talk-page will come to reflect what other misunderstandings might be impacting the article).--The article ain't gonna be burnin'. 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765 /2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I and a few others, have done some first-aid on the En-wiki article. If y'all keep your article superclose to what the En-wiki article says, then you will likely not have any 'lies regarding science' in your article.--Note: A (or any) polarization electric field comes in different 'flavors'; All ambipolar electric fields are a kind of polarization electric field.--Note also that "ambipolar" here, has nothing to do with the North Pole and the South Pole of the Earth.--Best title? Maybe Ambipolar electric field of the ionosphere.--To imply that the the electric field that has been indicated 'by the 2022 rocket-flight', is the only one that has to do with the Earth - would be a dubious claim, uncareful claim, and 'somewhat preposterous claim'.--Good luck while i fix other articles. 2001:2020:317:ACB3:D5D9:4A18:8F23:9FCE (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:BA4B:8456:85DD:62AF:8765

Anachronism

Continuing discussion from User talk:Davey2010
Hello @Davey2010, I need a secondary opinion about an issue. User:Gotitbro recently removed many categories from a number of articles, citing them as anachronistic in the edit summaries. Could you review these diffs and let me know if you find these categories problematic? I’d appreciate it. I don’t think User:Gotitbro wants to follow my advice and build consensus on the talk pages, and my continued reverts would only lead to edit warring. Here are the diffs: (Special:Diff/9750197, Special:Diff/9750186, Special:Diff/9750208, Special:Diff/9750209, Special:Diff/9750246, Special:Diff/9750250, Special:Diff/9750253, Special:Diff/9750257, Special:Diff/9750263, Special:Diff/9750276, Special:Diff/9750289 (Somehow Category:Monarchs of Afghanistan was left alone, but Pakistani monarchs was removed as "anachronistic"), Special:Diff/9750295, there are still lots more, as they spent a significant amount of time removing my contributions. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 14:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The issues with nationalistic POV and anachronistic editing were originally notified at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Chronic sockpuppeteer and further discussed at User talk:Gotitbro. I am brining these issues to a larger audience here.

A specific reply to the above: Remove Afghan as well if need be, I was more focused on clearly recent introduction of anachronistic POV. Also most of these diffs have nothing to do with cats.

Coming to the diffs themselves in order, the first one is not mine; "Indus Publications" is not RS and neither is "Indus Greek kingdom" used in any scholarly or historical RS; limiting the Sikh Empire anachronistcally largely to Pakistan is obvious POV, the term "Indo-Pak subcontinent" is very uncommon and largely not used in scholarly literature, Tibetan control was very transitory and barely of note listing that is dubious; removing every term related to India is obvious POV; lisitng any of these monarchs as Pakistani is obviously supported by none of the sources and is clearly anachronistic and ahistoric as is lisiting centuries under that appelation.

You would know that these are larely your own OR and synthesis, since none of this is supported by actual RS. I have not spent my time removing your contributions, merely reducing on the face POV is not a bar on your contributions. That you continue with the same edits [1], [2] is also telling.

Gotitbro (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The effort here is to introduce the anachronistic and ahistoric terms as "ancient Pakistan/Pakistani" and the like (no accepted scholarly source uses these terms), listing/categorizing Mughal and other emperors as "Pakistani" (akin to lisiting Mesopotamians as ancient Iraqis and Roman emperors as ancient Italians) and the like; no other wiki accepts this. I am not the only one who has noticed this POV and anachronistic disruption, enwiki users when the user's recent unblock appeal also did (after being blocked for socking); with blatant POV and SYNTH articles such as Ancient Pakistan (says something when the user completely redirected Ancient India to India naming dispute - another dubious article created to serve as a proxy for "Ancient Pakistan"), Middle kingdoms of Pakistan, Hellenic Pakistan (the latter two terms are entirely OR) being noted as reasons to deny that appeal.

The goal here is to render anything within the history of South Asia no matter how remotely connected to modern-day Pakistan to be entirely within the domain of "Ancient Pakistan" and the like. Similar efforts at historic distortions at the Polish (WW2) and Macedonian Wikipedias (Alexander the Great/Macedon) were undertaken by various POVPUSHing disrupters and took a great deal of effort to put an end to. The faster this is nipped in the bud the better, ahistoricism is not going to serve our projects any good. Gotitbro (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not unique to Pakistan. There are categories on English Wikipedia, such as en:Category:16th century in Bolivia, although the country was named after Simón Bolívar who was born in 1783. The borders of Bolivia didn't exist at that time either. There is en:Category:10th century in Ukraine, although there seems to be no evidence that the name "Ukraine" was used at that time. Also it was part of Kievan Rus', which is the progenitor of both Ukraine and Russia. 12.190.177.187 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the IP's response, there is also en:Category:Ancient Slovakia, en:Category:Ancient Bosnia and Herzogovania, en:Category:Ancient Croatia, en:Category:Hellenistic Croatia, and en:Category:Ancient Turkey; all of which, based on the reasoning in the above discussion, too could arguably be considered "anachronistic." – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 16:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That other anachronistic stuff may or may not exist is of no concern to us for the present topic at hand, our concern is South Asia which I know enough about to see the blatant ahistoric POV issues that are being purveyed here on simplewiki. There is a reason anachronistic "ancient Pakistan" related edits find no space in any wiki (as clearly witnessed in the discussion linked above) or any scholarly literature. The issue is not limited to cats it extends to in article content where nationalistic disruption of a whole slew of articles in the South Asia space has rendered them barely comprehensible to anyone familiar with that topic area. That you simply refuse to see how these edits are problematic is worrying.

PS: I took a look at the "ancient" cats listed above, most of them barely populated and Ancient Turkey actually redirects to :Category:Ancient history of Turkey. None of them exist as articles (not even as redirects), none of them are labelling ancient peoples and entities with modern appelations in articles et. al. Not that any of this should matter, the issue at hand is that your edits in the South Asia are untenable. Gotitbro (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that "Ancient Pakistan" lacks a basis in scholarly literature or that the term "Pakistan" cannot be used in an ancient context (prior to the modern country's creation) is certainly incorrect. Numerous reputable works have utilized this term in relation to the region’s history. Mukhtar Ahmed, a well-regarded author on South Asian archaeology whose works are also cited on English Wikipedia, has produced the multi-volume series Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History (Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV, Volume V). He writes, "...archaeologists often call the whole area the Greater Indus Region or the Greater Indus Valley. Thus, Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley; it is more a cultural and geographic unit than a political one." Five Thousand Years of Pakistan ("anachronistic?") by Mortimer Wheeler. Temples of the Indus - Studies in the Hindu Architecture of Ancient Pakistan by Michael W. Meister. The Greeks of Ancient Pakistan by Rafi U. Samad originally published in 2002 by the University of Michigan. Ancient Pakistan by the Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology and University of Peshawar 1964 (Has upto VII volumes). Ancient and Contemporary Pakistan ISBN 9789699837029, 9699837020 by Afrasiab. The rise of civilization in India and Pakistan ("anachron"?) by Bridget Allchin, Raymond Allchin. The Ancient Martial Arts of Indo-Pakistan By Robert G. Zepecki. Early Civilization in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd Millennium BC ("anachronic?") published by Oxford University Press. Ancient, medieval & recent history and coins of Pakistan by Sohail A. Khan. The Indus saga and the making of Pakistan (talks about "ancient pakistan") by Aitzaz Ahsan published by Oxford University Press. The region of Pakistan is often referred to as the "Greater Indus Region" or "Greater Indus Valley" in archaeological and historical contexts, which is also mentioned in the above quoted sources. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 05:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem with uncritical source dumping I was talking about. Robert G. Zepecki (self-published/non-RS); Aitzaz Ahsan (politician, not a historian or scholar); Afrasiab (self-published/non-RS); Mukhtar Ahmed (self-published/non-RS), can find nothing about him being a historian (or who he is really), some enwiki articles using non-RS not withstanding; interestingly enough this what is Wheeler's article on enwiki (an FA) has to say about this book "He also wrote a work of archaeological propaganda for the newly formed state, Five Thousand Years of Pakistan (1950)", the same can be said about the bulletin; Rafi U. Samad's book is from Indus Publications (non-RS), the "Original from" label in Google Books is for which libraries supplied it to Google Books for digital scanning. Allchin's book does not even use the term neither does "Forgotten Cities on the Indus", Meister's book also does not use the term beyond the book's title. "Greater Indus Region" or "Greater Indus Valley" are used for the Indus Valley Civilization and should not be seen as alternatives for anachronistic terms, neither should modern appelations for be retrofitted to become historic regions.

You are not going to find a single journal of repute in South Asian studies or any international university department (specializing in the same) using the term or being termed as such, most scholarship prefers South Asia and the like. Misrepresentation of sources and selective sourcing is simply not going to change the fact. A seach for almost any nationalistic and anachronistic term on Google Books is going to lead to some results ("Ancient Turkey", "Ancient United States", "Ancient Germany", "Ancient Switzerland"), that would not legitimize them and make their use any more appropriate especially not on NPOV wiki projects. Gotitbro (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The intersection of geography and history creates plenty of problems for categorisation, and there isnt a simple answer. It requires judgement. So although Germany as a state didnt exist until 1870 the concept of Germany certainly did, and we use it. But as far as I can see the concept of Pakistan did not arise until the 20th century and was not articulated until 1933. Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many diffs being brought up here alleging anachronistic editing. I haven't managed to review all of them because each of them is a research effort in its own right, but I have seen enough to be concerned, and I am inclined to agree with Gotitbro at this point of time.

I will start by noting that the MOS is very clear regarding anachronisms. The Simple English Wikipedia does not have Simple English versions of all MOS pages, but it is a well-established guideline that we follow EN where local guidelines/policy do not exist. Per en:MOS:GEO, anachronisms are to be avoided. en:Wikipedia:Presentism clarifies this a bit more - For example, a person born in what is now Germany should not be said to have been born in Germany if the birth was before 1870, when Germany was formed. en:MOS:LDS (while not the same subject matter as what is being discussed here) also explains anachronisms - ...terminology that would be out-of-place or meaningless in the time period being discussed (emphasis mine).

So now the issue here is, when did the concept of "Pakistan" as a place first existed? And more importantly, is that alleged starting time period a view that has gained consensus among academics and historians? In the case of the monarch categorizations above, if a person who was alive back then were to call the relevant subjects a/the "Pakistani monarch", would that person have made sense during that era?

About sources: as pointed out above, just because some sources assert the existence of an "Ancient Pakistan" does not necessarily mean that said concept exists (and to write articles as such is also a violation of en:WP:UNDUE). Sources also need to be examined critically. Concerns about the credibility/reliability of the sources/authors aside, I would like to know from where Ancient Pakistan: An Archaeological History gains its authority in asserting the term "Ancient Pakistan", because I find this quote from the book problematic (emphasis mine):

...archaeologists often call the whole area the Greater Indus Region or the Greater Indus Valley. Thus, Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley

The use of "thus" implies that the author was advancing a viewpoint/argument at that point in the book i.e. they were making the claim/drawing the conclusion that Ancient Pakistan is therefore essentially the Greater Indus Valley, because of some reasons/premises mentioned earlier in the book. I don't have a copy of the book, but I would like to see in what context the author made the above statement in the book. As it is, I am not willing to outright accept such a quote as evidence of Ancient Pakistan's existence.

And more importantly, I don't see the EN Wikipedia making such similar claims either. Now, I am not saying that EN is always correct in its content, but if we do deviate from EN systematically (as those above edits are showing), then we had better have a very good reason to do so. Chenzw  Talk  18:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chenzw Here is the online copy of the book from which I quoted, in case you'd like to review the context. That being said, what do you think would be a more suitable title per WP:MOS if we're discussing the ancient history of the land that is now Pakistan? Could "Ancient history of Pakistan" be a better alternative? – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 18:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed the context of the statement (and it's from volume 2, not volume 1 as earlier linked), and don't find the book's claim acceptable. First, the argument leading to the asserted conclusion that "Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley" is a non sequitur - earlier statements do not logically lead to the conclusion. Second, the assertion being made contradicts what the book also claims a few paragraphs earlier - that the term 'Indian subcontinent' as an ecological unit is of questionable utility in the study of prehistory of the region: thus, Pakistan has little in common with the rest of the Indian subcontinent, geographically and ecologically, historically or culturally, beyond a superficial proximity of the terrain. (emphasis mine). What I am seeing here is, on pages 20-21 of the book, the book is simultaneously claiming:

• Pakistan is a distinctive part of, and has little in common with the Indian subcontinent (the book calls South Asia the Indian subcontinent).
• Ancient Pakistan is essentially the Greater Indus Valley (which also comprises parts of the Indian subcontinent).

And really, whether "Ancient Pakistan" exists or not, and whether we should call it "Ancient history of Pakistan", misses the larger point, and I don't wish to have a discussion about the ideal title convention right now. The issue is about the anachronistic editing, not just the Ancient Pakistan matter. Chenzw  Talk  01:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns about the contradictions in Mukhtar Ahmed's work, inconsistencies or nuanced statements within a scholarly text don't necessarily undermine its overall reliability?

Also, the use of the term "Ancient Pakistan" by Mukhtar Ahmed is not isolated. Other scholars, including Michael W. Meister in Temples of the Indus - Studies in the Hindu Architecture of Ancient Pakistan, Rafi U. Samad in The Greeks of Ancient Pakistan and The Indus Saga, and the University of Peshawar's multi-volume series Ancient Pakistan (Vol. I-VII) 1964 by the Bulletin of the Department of Archaeology, also use this terminology to describe the region's ancient history. Mortimer Wheeler's Five Thousand Years of Pakistan is another example where "Pakistan" is used to discuss the region's long-standing historical and archaeological context.

That said, I agree with you that we need to be cautious about potential anachronism. If the term "Ancient Pakistan" is indeed problematic, we can certainly discuss alternative titles. However, it is worth considering that this term has been used in scholarly works, and we might want to weigh its relevance carefully before dismissing it outright. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 06:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a no started if AI responses such as the one above are going to be dishonestly inserted into discussions.

These non-RS and non-mainstream sources have already been discussed above. A search for any double quotation term is going to find titles even fringe ones, that does not mean we will streamline those fringe views here on wiki projects. Gotitbro (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussed? You collectively labeled all the sources as self-published and non-reliable without really looking into them. The only one we've actually discussed so far (and still are discussing) is Mukhtar's work. Shouldn't we analyze each source individually? That's what a discussion should be. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the actual issue is about individual sources. In either case, what I am seeing here is the cherry-picking of sources to support a comparatively minority view that has not gained traction among mainstream research and literature. See en:WP:UNDUE. The real issue is about the anachronistic editing, and I haven't seen a response or acknowledgement yet regarding my questions about the Pakistani monarchy categorizations. Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The intention isn’t to push a minority view. I wrote an article the ancient history of "Pakistan" focusing on the geographic region. I used the term "Ancient Pakistan" because I noticed it had traction in academic circles (at least in some). Regarding the Pakistani monarchy categorization, I apologize if my earlier responses didn’t fully address it. Categorizing monarchs based on the regions they ruled—whether Indus Valley, Gandhara, or Punjab—has historical relevance and gives a more accurate framework. These regions are now part of modern Pakistan, so the idea of "Pakistani monarchs" is about grouping rulers by the territory that now constitutes Pakistan, not implying they had a modern identity. Of course, using the term Pakistani monarch back then wouldn’t have made sense, but the same applies to terms like "Chinese monarchs" or "Indian monarchs". Also, we do have "Pakistani monarchs," like the rulers of the princely states and kingdoms? – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 03:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That is your own OR and SYNTH justification for anachronism none of which is not supported by any RS. The existence of other extant stuff is not going vindicate the attempts being made here. Roman and Byzantine emperors are not categorized as Italian or Turkish either and Mughal emperors and the like are also not going to be labelled under anachronistic demonyms and labels. Modern territory-related anachronisms based on personal analysis are not accepted on any wiki project and are not going especially excepted here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no collective labelling, the merit and demerit of every source has been individually given. The only RS of merit within all of them were Allchin and Forgotten Cities on the Indus (which do not support your anachronism at all) and Meister (which does not even use the term beyond its choice of book title). We should not be going around in circles discussing every fringe source and view that exists on the internet or has managed to get self-published. Even if a trawling of the internet leads to some sources here and there that would still not impute mainstream scholarship which obviously does not support this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

While planets may have a lot of patience, mine is running out.

What should we call it then? You said yourself Indus Valley is not a replacement for this so-called "anachronism". We can't call it Ancient India, that would also be very wrong, like calling something in Mongolia "Chinese". 🪐●Haumeon 16:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit perplexed about the complaint above regarding losing patience - were you involved in the controversial edits? I maintain that anachronistic edits are taking place, and what specifically is the "it" you are referring to? In either case, I am quite sure "South Asia" is a widely accepted term. Chenzw  Talk  01:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not losing patience here. Instead, there was an ultra-heated debate going on at ANI where this user requested Cyber.Eyes to be banned for this. 🪐●Haumeon 02:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• En-wiki does not have any instance of using ancient Pakistan, in any article.--(Please find/show the link to their discussion, that lead to that decision.
  
  I am now suggesting a rename title of (article) Ancient Pakistan.--For now, I am supporting "renaming away from" Ancient Pakistan. (Renaming, Simple-wiki's article, in other words.) 2001:2020:32D:D689:8D1E:C4BD:EBCA:32EA (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:32D:D689:8D1E:C4BD:EBCA:32EA (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I guess so. We can move Ancient Pakistan to another title (what should that be?) and all the other pages that refer to ancient Pakistan. We can maybe rename the categories to South Asia instead. 🪐●Haumeon 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  Considering the existing articles on similar topics, I think "Ancient History of Pakistan" would be the most fitting title, similar to en:Ancient history of Afghanistan, en:Ancient history of Cyprus, and en:Ancient history of Yemen. Also, Renaming the cats under South Asia seems reasonable, but it would cover a broader area now. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 17:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  True, true. Maybe "Ancient history of Pakistan"? (fixed capitalization). Maybe renaming the cats to "Indus Valley"? 🪐●Haumeon 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, renaming the century cats from Pakistan to Indus Valley would be a good move. It would at least avoid any concerns about being anachronistic. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Indus Valley isn't a coherent historical region/terminology either (and no wiki categorizes regions as such) and a discussion between a subset of two users does not really count as a consensus to go ahead renaming and repopulating contested categories and content. It would appear on the face of it yet another attempt of what exactly is being questioned here i.e. an anachronistic projection of modern territories to ascribe historicity within them and to circumscribe moden regions onto them. Gotitbro (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'd tag your comment with {{complex}} if I could. Many simple english wikipedians can't read this without spending hours in dictionaries.

  Anachronistic projection of modern territories? Probably not, but I see your point. Either way, what else to rename these articles and cats to? South Asia seems too broad, and renaming to India would be even more controversial. 🪐●Haumeon 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry if I wasn't clear, in brief that was to say that we should not have any 'anachronistic region' based categories (Note: enwiki does not recognize Indus Valley as a well defined region beyond the meaning of the river, nor do most sources specializing in South Asia). Moreover we do not categorize regions by centuries etc. even if it was a well understood region.

  In our case then categories such as "History of Pakistan" and the like should suffice, or if we are to be more specific to actual regions such as "History of Punjab" or History of Sindh" etc. Gotitbro (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Some sections of "History of Pakistan" (article at En-wiki):
  • "Bronze age
    • 'Indus Valley Civilisation
  • Early history – Iron Age:
    • Vedic period
  • Ancient history
    • Achaemenid Empire
    • Macedonian Empire
    • Mauryan Empire
  • Classical history – Middle Kingdoms"
    
    "Early history", before "Ancient history": thoughts? 2001:2020:337:CC38:1054:74AB:8797:B4F9 (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, that sounds fine. 🪐●Haumeon 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Agenda-pushing going on (in wiki-article) History of Pakistan? Well, i have moved some stuff (to Talk-page): diff
  
  simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=9761587&oldid=9761075
  .--If the removed stuff, was not good enough for that article, then please help keep out (the not good-enough stuff). 2001:2020:335:83AE:C859:E30B:5E26:30F3 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust

I think Nazi ghettos is quite short and could be merged with Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust, which an editor has been working on recently. However, should there be a standalone list or should that be included within the main article for the topic? 2607:F140:6000:806A:C138:1965:393B:D295 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany, is English-wiki's article. The name is spot-on.--(En-wiki has one article.)--We have two articles (but they should be one).--It does not matter which name you choose (for now), because i expect to have a surprise (after a merge).--Now, if there were 'non-Nazi ghettos in Europe' during say, 1940-1945, then there is one title that maybe should not be the 'merge title'.--Good luck (and see ya after 'the' merge), cuz i'll be fixing other articles. 2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we might also have an issue on naming here. Stalin established 'workj camps' (called 'Gulag), the first camp was built and opened 1918/1919. Most of them were established in the 1930s. Stalin died in 1953. They were used for regular and political prisoners (and perhaps targetet less of an 'ethnic group' than those in Germany. At the start of the war, about 1.5 million people were in these camps. S, likely we have a naming issue, do we want all 'labor camps', or only those of Nazi Germany? - I am not a hisotrian, and don't know if similar camps existed in other parts of the world. Eptalon (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Gulag was a network of (many) Penal colony, in the Soviet Union. Check if the Vorkuta "camp", was a work camp, or something worse.--Could one say that few people would bother to check if the worst of the Auschwitz camps, were work camps? 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

"The origins of the town [,now city,] of Vorkuta are associated with Vorkutlag, one of the most notorious forced-labour camps of the Gulag", according to En-wiki. 2001:2020:30D:A266:B459:A45E:E830:8A74 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 /2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361

I think we should focus this on a single page and it should be about the Nazi use of ghettos. fr33kman 16:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Commons gadgets

Somehow both Wikipedia:HotCat and commons:Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot are not working for me. They’re both Commons gadgets, Wikimedia Commons itself doesn’t seem to work for me—I can only access it when using a VPN. However, as per Wikipedia’s policies, we can’t edit with proxies. Is anyone else experiencing this issue, and does anyone know how to fix it? It seems like Commons might be blocked in my region; is there a known ban? – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 14:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It works fine in Italy [3] ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I see, there are probably some restrictions in my region, I think. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 09:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyber.Eyes.2005: I don't know why there would be geographical restrictions on the gadgets. The best place to ask would probably be wherever the support for them is -- maybe somewhere on MediaWiki?

The only things I've ever noticed is that certain Cat-a-lot functions don't work here the way they do on Commons. I can do everything from a category page, but Cat-a-lot is also supposed to work from other pages, such as from search results, but that hasn't worked for me. I've assumed that we don't have all the "pieces" here, but I don't really know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

For me, these two tools don’t work at all; like they don’t even show up. But as soon as I enable a VPN, they appear and "seemingly" start working. However, I can’t edit with them because proxies are restricted from editing on Wikipedia. Also, thanks for the suggestion, I’ll see if I can ask about it on MediaWiki. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 10:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Rock Lee

Hi all, I will be working on this page for a few days in hopes that I can bring it to GA. There is a lot of work to be done like dealing with the red links, and some more simplification in the lower sections. Any advice and help will be much appreciated. Further about the page can be discussed on the talk page. I will be watching the page so I will try to reply to the comments as quickly as possible. BRP ^ever 16:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed change to a QD option

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed change to option T2. Please read and give your views. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Cite book error

Hi, Over at East Lancs Greenway I've added access dates to the 2 books however in doing so it now brings up a "Check date values in: |access-date=" error, I've reread Help:CS1_errors#bad_date about 10 times and I still can't figure out what or where the issue us?,

Apologies in advance if I've missed something glaringly obvious I've only had 5 hours sleep, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Davey2010 I don't understand character encodings, but there are hidden characters just before the closing brackets in both of these citations. If you remove those characters and just type in "2024}}", the errors go away. 2601:644:9083:5730:5DEE:7211:EF2B:6CC1 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@2601:644:9083:5730:5DEE:7211:EF2B:6CC1, You are amazing thank you so much!, Never even thought of that so thank you for your help it's very much greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding languages

It used to be easy to connect to other Wikipedias with the same article. Things have changed, and I can't see how to do it. Our Ichkabal article should be linked to the Spanish Wikipedia's article on it. Kdammers (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's policies on interlanguage-linking just yet, but I think you shouldn't link an article to other Wikipedias just because it is remotely related (through countries, for example). It's like linking to enwiki, that is looked down upon. 🪐●Haumeon 05:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We no longer link inter-language wikis by adding Interwikis at the bottom of the page—that was the old method. Now, we connect pages directly through Wikidata. You'll need to create an entry there and link the same articles across different Wikipedias. If you provide me with the link to the Spanish Wikipedia article for Ichkabal, I can link them both for you. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 05:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

What Kdammers is pointing out is that adding interwiki links (via Wikidata) is indeed much harder in the Vector 2022 skin than the Vector Legacy (2010) skin. On the Vector Legacy skin, there is a pencil icon which you can click and simply enter the language code and the title of the page you want to connect to. If that page is already connected to a Wikidata item, it adds the simplewiki link; if not, it creates a Wikidata item with both pages. On Vector 2022, as far as I can tell, you have to go to the Wikidata page to do this. I use Vector Legacy for this reason. I have no idea why the developers didn't make this process easier. Batrachoseps (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Can't you email or contact MediaWiki/the developers to fix this? 🪐●Haumeon 05:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Batrachoseps I see, I’ve been using the Vector 2022 skin from the start and didn’t realize that. With Vector 2022, you don’t actually have to go to Wikidata to link pages if you're on a PC/desktop. On the right side in the Tools bar, there’s an “edit interlanguage links” option. If you click on that, the process I believe is similar to Vector Legacy (2010)—you just add the language code and page title, and it connects them. If the page doesn’t exist, it creates an entry on Wikidata. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 05:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cyber.Eyes.2005 I see, it's the "edit interlanguage links" in the sidebar. I had assumed it was the "add languages" at the top of the page that appears when the page isn't connected to other language versions. When I couldn't add the links there, I didn't think of looking elsewhere. Thanks for the tip! Batrachoseps (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

To change your skin, go to Special:Preferences and then the "Appearance" tab. Batrachoseps (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation in an article

The article - Bangladesh Madrasah Education Board contains information about 'Darunnajat Siddiquia Kamil Madrasa', probably a Madrasah of Bangladesh. I think the article should be deleted. 😬CsmLrner 19:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Issue with use of Template:Football squad

This template appears to be used as a base for creating navigational boxes for the current squads of football teams. The header in the resulting templates says "current squad". The issue is that the template was also used to create the following navboxes for teams' squads in individual seasons:

• Template:FC Liefering squad 2021/22
• Template:FC Liefering squad 2022/23
• Template:FC Red Bull Salzburg squad 2021/22
• Template:FC Red Bull Salzburg squad 2022/23
• Template:FC Red Bull Salzburg squad 2023/24

These are not intended to be for the current squads, but for the squads of specific seasons, so they shouldn't say "current squad".

I think we need to do one of the following:

• Create a new template to handle these so that they don't say "current year". (I don't suggest changing the existing template because we would lose that change if we update the template from enwiki.)
• Decide that we don't need these and eliminate them. For what it's worth, enwiki doesn't seem to have any "<team> squad <season>" templates. The five listed above are the only "<team> squad <season>" templates I could find here.

Pinging @Werner100359:, the creator of the five templates listed.

Thoughts? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Non admin closure

Per this Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the 2023 discussion, but I continue to stand by what I said in 2020, and I agree that the argument about backlog reduction is not a very strong one (or even a significant one, for that matter). To quote Fehufanga in the 2023 discussion: What we need is more people actively participating in RfDs by leaving comments that are not just votes... or ambiguous !votes. --Chenzw  Talk  07:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chenzw So can I continue? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think you can (or even should have started). My personal take was that I wouldn't mind NACs for unambiguous results, but I don't see any consensus supporting an NAC process in the 2023 discussion. Chenzw  Talk  07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Davey2010 Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You ignore my advice, post here and then want me to comment again ?, The mind truly boggles. Don't ping me again. –Davey2010^Talk 10:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You asked to post on simple talk? for advice? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get "I should go to Simple talk" from this comment > (If Auntof6 has a problem they can go to Simple Talk and either ask for clarification or start a proposal on the matter,), Which part of that quoted comment tells you you should go to the talkpage?. –Davey2010^Talk 10:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

oh Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

it was my misunderstanding sorry Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah well damage has been done now, 2 admins have now told you you cannot close RFDs so you can't close them now. Have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 10:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t planning to, not that it matters. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I endose there not being an non-admin closure on simplewiki. The current cadre can handle it especially now that we've asked people to run for admin. fr33kman 14:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• I see no reason as to why people cannot close RFDs here, Yes I supported disallowing it in the 2023 discussion linked above however since then it's become apparent some admins don't close RFDs once they've speedied an article, Cactus was closing RFDs where the admins didn't close the RFDs once they speedied the article and so I don't see a problem with their closures here and in fact we should welcome this sort of helpful editing instead of disallowing it and thus allowing random people to comment on deleted articles. Also by allowing people to do this sort of work it gives them some knowledge and insight in to admin areas and allows people to help out when there's no admins on, plus it's a box ticked for RFA. –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree with this. While admins are encouraged to close the RFD of pages they QDd, I see no reason why users shouldn't be able to use common sense and close for those they didn't. This isn't even a big deal, and any issue that may occur can be resolved easily. At most, we might just have to re-open the discussion. I think it's best if we admins assist users with problems if it arises instead of barring people for simple tasks. BRP ^ever 14:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

missing stub themes

Category:Stub categories

There are a lot of quite specific stub topics, but we're missing some significant broad themes.

We need stub categories for language and culture, one of each, and possibly something general about news or journalism, those names or something similar. The closest are literature, geography, politics, and religion, a lot of language or culture topics don't really fit in those specific themes.

LagoonGoose (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: The general {{stub}} template can be used for things that don't fit any of the more-specific stub types.

This wiki keeps the number of stub types to a minimum. New types need to be approved at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. Typical requirements for getting a new type approved are 1) the existence of at least 1,000 articles that fit the new type and 2) one or more users who are going to do a lot of work to expand those articles. Just changing the stub type on an article (called "stub sorting") isn't considered helpful. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

How many are currently unsorted? LagoonGoose (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

How many are just "stub" with nothing more specific? LagoonGoose (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: I probably can't give you an exact number, but here are some stats:

• Template:Stub has 6405 transclusions
• There are 6,411 pages in Category:Stubs.

I don't know what accounts for the difference in the two numbers. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 the automatic text on categories says something like "may not reflect recent changes", so it probably just takes a while to catch up. LagoonGoose (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the difference in numbers is probably because some pages use {{Multistub}} with a blank parameter, which can add them to Category:Stubs and another stub category. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If we can find any like that, we should probably change them so they only add the article to a more-specific category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at what's there, some combination of "media" and "social sciences" would cover a lot of it. There's quite a few languages, but provably not 1000, they could go in either "social sciences" or "media and communication". There's also news outlets, books, book characters, etc. which could go in a "media" category. "Africa" might work, but possibly doesn't have 1000. LagoonGoose (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: Well, maybe they could, but we don't create new stub types just because there are a lot of articles that would fit them. As I said, stubs are managed differently here. This is another way things are kept simple here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually know how other wikis manage stubs, I've only looked at it here. I was looking for ways to be helpful, sorting the unsorted subs looked like a thing that needed doing, but if my suggestions aren't helpful I'll ignore the stub categories and leave it how it is. LagoonGoose (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: Understood, and your wanting to be helpful is much appreciated! If you want, I can give some thought to something that needs doing that you might want to do. Would you want something easy, or would you be interested in doing something more complicated? -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 lets start with simple? LagoonGoose (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: Would you like to work on dead-end pages? A dead-end page is a page that has no links to other pages. You would figure out what words/terms should be linked and add those links. You can find dead-end pages in two places:

• Special:DeadendPages (currently shows 319 pages)
• Category:Dead-end pages (currently has 75 pages) - Note: if you work on these, be sure to remove the {{dead end}} template when you add links.

I'll give you one piece of guidance on these. When adding links, link to complete ideas/topics, which doesn't always mean individual words. I worked on a few of these yesterday, and here are some examples of what I mean:

• In The Book of Pooh, I linked the whole term "children's television series", instead of linking the three words separately or linking "television series" separately
• In Ae (Cyrillic), I linked the term "Cyrillic script" instead of linking the two words separately

Of course, sometimes a single word is the right thing to link.

If that doesn't interest you, let me know and I'll keep looking. -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6 am I linking in our out? What is the difference between the two sets? LagoonGoose (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: I'm not sure what you mean. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What about {{Africa-stub}} and {{Middle-East-stub}}? We have {{Asia-stub}} and {{Europe-stub}} but no Africa, and there are enough stubs about the modern Middle East that they warrant a set more specific than Asia or geography. LagoonGoose (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@LagoonGoose: This wiki manages the stubs differently from, for example, English Wikipedia. It doesn't create stub types just to have a complete set. If you'd like to have a new type, subject to what I mentioned above, you can request it at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project. You might want to read previous requests for new types to get an idea of what is required to create new ones. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

no, it wasn't to have a "complete set", I was just trying to think of stub categories that might cover a lot of what is not currently described well in any existing sets. LagoonGoose (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Help needed - active admins

Having spoken to a few admins we feel we need at least two new, active, admins. We have 6 active admins at the moment. I'd like to encourage mature, active editors to think about it and offering your services to run for admin. Being an admin is no big deal and is easy to do. Thank you and good luck to those who decide to run. Yours, fr33kman 22:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy links:

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship
• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Administrator.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Who do you think are applicable and what are your criteria? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone with more than 4 to 6 months of editing fits the basic time rule and the criteria are listed in the link above. I'd encourage anyone who meets them to apply. Please note: we have had admins on simplewiki before who were or still may be blocked on other projects. Whilst not idle we'd treat each case upon its own merits. fr33kman 13:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to state that if you want to be an admin but see that there are already a number of RfAs running not to worry. Put up your RfA as well. The worst thing is we end up with 6 new admins. Trust me that'd be great. fr33kman 14:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree we need more people to help with the workload, I feel we also need to be careful not to encourage candidates who are not yet ready. Over the past few weeks, we have had three unsuccessful adminship candidates. I appreciate there is more of a need now but with activity among semi-active administrators increasing, I do not feel we are in desperate need of new administrators at this point to the stage we need to bring in admins who have found themselves blocked on other projects. --Ferien2 (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I could try to step up, but only when I think i'm ready. RiggedMint 12:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, take your time. There is no rush :) BRP ^ever 13:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Meta Quest 3

I feel like this article is, after a lot of maintenance, now ready to be nominated to GA status. What do you guys think? Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is great that a GA nominee has a disputed tag in it.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the error (being the disputed tag as it's not needed anymore, I just needed to reword it). Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's GA material now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 18:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's not ready. It uses terms that are not simple. I'm a college graduate of an American university, and I don't know what "pancake lenses"are -- and I can only guess at "passthrough." Kdammers (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't simplify "pancake lenses", and "passthrough" is self-explanatory. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 13:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for GA status, wish me luck. Contributor^118,784 Let's talk 12:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

More checkusers?

hello, When I look at the requests for checkuser page, I see that most requests get handled by two or perhaps three checkusers. We are all volunteers, abd I think another checkuser might come in handy. Please note that per our guideline only administrators can apply. Also note that the Foundation had some extra requirements (Most notably: adult where you live, identified to the foundation, and sign a special agreement). Also Meta wants 25 votes,70% of them in support,which is difficult to obtain in a week. I nevertheless invite people to apply, being able to handle requests in s timely manner is important. Eptalon (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Eptalon and I had a private discussion about this topic and both agreed that at least one new CU is needed to keep up with requests. Please note that not all of the checks done are listed on the RFCU page as check users often perform checks whilst investigating xwiki vandalism and in certain other circumstances. Therefore the visible workload is less than the actual workload with checks per day ranging from 3 to well over 40. I think that candidates must be technically conversant with the IP protocol, CIDR, XFF, user agents and other technical aspects of using the CU tool and should be well familiar with not just WMF policy but both simplewiki policy and the technical documentation on the MediaWiki website. An ability to have a good working relationship with check users from other wikis and the stewards would be ideal as would familiarity with the enwiki SPI process as we very much work together since we are both highly visible English speaking projects. fr33kman 18:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point to note for any new CUs. Simplewiki-only sockpuppetry is pretty rare, basically all of the cases we have are cross-wiki. Which requires an understanding of how to engage with stewards, investigate xwiki abuse, etc. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon perhaps we could "feature" those requests here in the hopes of giving them more visibility. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can hold them the usual manner as always. fr33kman 02:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

If necessary, I can step up for the role. I am familiar with the policies as a former steward and former wikidata CU. I think I have a decent amount of cross-wiki and simplewiki experience.--BRP ^ever 06:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting, if anyone else wants to step up, I am happy to support them. BRP ^ever 12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@BRPever If you want you could, I would gladly support you. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Same here Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be great. You're certainly experienced enough. Go for it. It's a minimum of one active CU we're asking for, more would be great. fr33kman 15:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Italy

I created a new WikiProject for those who are interested in Italy. Join now! Astera🪻 ^{talk edits} 22:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Long-lasting events and their categories

For events that last many months (e.g. COVID-19 pandemic, Russian invasion of Ukraine) or years (e.g. War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), World War II), should they be included in every monthly (e.g. Category:January 2024 events) or yearly category? Should there be some limit to this? If they are to be included, should the article (e.g. Israel–Hamas war) or the category (e.g. Category:Israel–Hamas war) be placed there? Batrachoseps (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would be useful. Note that things like the conflict between Israel and other settlers there has gone on since the state was formed (in the 1950s) I think. Perhaps have use the yearly categories for that? Eptalon (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Israel was formed from British Mandate of Palestine in 1948 fr33kman 16:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cactusisme I'll fill it out Astera🪻 ^{talk edits} 14:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have filled it out too. 🪐●Haumeon●🪐 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 11:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 11:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Inactive check user policy proposal

I have begun a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Inactive check users to prompt discussion of a new policy regarding inactive check users. Please use the associated talk page to discuss it. The current page is just a starting point and will change over time. Thank you for participating. fr33kman 16:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman I know a few wikis where similar policies were proposed including globally if I remember, but there was a heavy opposition considering the nature of this tool. Primarily because marking a number of checks as a requirement to keep these tools will encourage rash and unnecessary checks. And secondarily, since the tools involve a lot more than just doing logged checks. Like, keeping other CUs in check, processing unblock requests, cross-wiki coordination, acting based on information shared among CUs in CUwiki and many more. BRP ^ever 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there are problems with any policies of this nature but believe there must be a way to dissuade users getting the hat and then never or rarely using it. Just like the project needs active editors so to does the checkuser group need active CUs. If having any of the admin bits truly is "no big deal" then why hang onto a flag you never use. Non-admin editors already have issues regarding the admiration of admins , especially stewards, it is incumbent upon us to dissuade that sort of thinking. Volunteering to give up a hat because you never use it would show that having it in the first place truly was no biggie. However it's done, I see a problem and I seek an answer. fr33kman 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the difficulty in convincing 25+ people that you should have the tool already a mechanism to dissuade users from getting the hat and not using it?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

+1. The hat is so difficult to get in the first place that I'm not worried about hat collectors. Also, all of the problems with this on other wikis apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! I don't think we have a hat collector problem here. I greatly admire our admin pool and do not think people ask for tools they don't need. But to get the flag, be active for a while and then peter off is a problem. Getting the flag is difficult for a reason, the information we gather can be very dangerous as we all know what misuse can bring about. fr33kman 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is really about hat collectors. But if there's a concern about too many checkusers, you'd want to remove less active checkusers so you could replace them with more active ones. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, five checks in six months seems like a lot for a wiki of this size. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I see two basic problems: Cu logs aren't public, so only a checkuser (or steward) can tell if I ran a check. Also, CUs also run other checks, about which they don't necessarily tell at WP:rfcu. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A quick look at the logs show who is active and who isn't. My main concern is the RfCU page and the checks that are done there. Brian and Vermont don't factor in because it's obvious that they are very active with the tools. If the inactive CUs were doing similar work that'd be fine and I wouldn't have an issue other than our mutually agreed statement for the need for help with the "public" side of the work we do. We'll always have more work going on in the background than at RfCU due to the nature of xwiki investigations. If inactive CUs want to use their tools doing background jobs then I'd welcome that. I'm talking about someone who uses it a few times a year. We do have a disproportionate number of CUs to admins and that's not going to change. With the spill over of problems coming at us from enwiki we just need help with the request pool. fr33kman 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The number of times a CU uses the tool per set period of time isn't really important. I'm just wondering how we can encourage colleagues to become more active or step down to allow someone else to take up the fight. Although five actions in six months is a trivial task to achieve . There is enough work to keep us all in an active state. fr33kman 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@FusionSub, yes getting the hat is hard in the first place but with the ratio of actives to inactives I think it it doesn't dissuade inactivity. fr33kman 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends on how big of a possibility there was for the RfP to fail. An RfP like yours, where it was unanimous? I can see your point. But if you struggle to get it and only get it by 1 or 2 !votes, then I believe my point applies, since they put in a chunk of work to convince the wider community.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

(forgot to ping @Fr33kman).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Better idea?

@fenufanga mentioned the idea of a possible reelection of CUs. That would give the community a chance to hold CUs to account for their activity status without using a number of actions per year, which can easily be done in a week by a CU. With a reelection process the question can become one of quality rather than quantity. fr33kman 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we are okay. There is no crisis. Looking at the list of users Vermont and Bsad are pretty active, Eptalon and you are pretty responsive in RfCU, Djsasso and Operator are probably taking a break and will be back once ready since their general activity is low, and Peterdownunder is ready to step down if needed. We don't allow CU without admin bits, so I don't think such a drastic new process is needed. BRP ^ever 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 25 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 25 September 2024.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

Trizek_(WMF), 09:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Iraq

Hello! I've started a Wikiproject for Iraq, i hope to see new members in it! User:Kirkukturk3/WikiProject Iraq Kirkuk 09:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)