This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here.
You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages.
You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.
Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.
Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Yep, back to normal now. The text however looks so large compared to the contents of the main page that quite frankly I think it's ugly. Cyclonical (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason all the words are bigger on my phone than yours, so "to" appears on a separate line. I do agree that "Welcome to Wikipedia" is too big. TitanicGlitter (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Judging by the history it appears to have been a vanity venue that never took off but nonetheless it was still part of history even if it was very short-lived, We're not gonna get 2009 back so should make the most of the precious history we have of that era. –Davey2010Talk17:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy as to who can become an oversighter is now at meta, and or candidates are listed on the page, where the candidates for the other privileges are listed; given that you need 25 support votes, getting the flag isn't easy. Eptalon (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My questions is: Is this content okay or should it all be removed and leave them looking like this diff?
Having this infomation in articles A) gives the impression we're a medication pamphlet as opposed to an encyclopedia, and B) I feel it could open doors to WMF being sued especially if someones followed the instructions here and it all went terribly wrong (I don't know much about the law so don't know if the WMF could be sued/held responsible etc)
Imagine if W;ChangingUsername unknowingly got the dosage wrong and someone reads it and assumes its correct and for instance takes 2 tablets instead of 1 - Of course I would hope no one would ever follow such instructions here but everyone is different, and taking into account the website we are and our viewers (whom may have mental disabilities and may not know better/different) it's a very stupid and dangerous game but I would like to seek others opinions before I go on a blanking spree,
@Davey2010: Thanks for raising this here. I had a conversation with the editor about this and I meant to get back to it but I haven't had a chance.
You are absolutely right. Wikipedia should not be giving instruction or advice about anything. In the case of medications, it's even more important because of the legal implications. Wikipedia is neither a how-to nor a medical provider. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove this kind of info. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Auntof6, You're welcome - I know I reverted this editors edits before somewhere and it resulted in one big drama so wanted to double check first,
I absolutely and 110% agree with your last statement and couldn't ever have put it any better myself - In all honestly I wonder if this editor is here for the wrong reasons but I guess that's another discussion for another venue, I'm genuinely shocked someone added this and thought it was okay but anyway I'll remove the content, Many thanks for your quick response/help it's greatly appreciated, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk20:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the article also. Change it if you want, and if i think something could go in after, it can be changed back and forth to make good articles
Hi @W;ChangingUsername, Many thanks for remaining calm and patient - You're more than welcome to post here and ask editors if x, and y would be okay,
I'm not lecturing you but in case you weren't aware the Simple English Wikipedia is also for people with different needs, such as children, students, and adults with learning difficulties, and people who are trying to learn English and as I said those with mental disabilities whom may not understand may think it's okay to follow the instructions here,
I appreciate you expanding the articles and trying to be helpful but given the website we are and who we cater to I'm sure you can understand the seriousness and danger of including the information you have here, I would hate for the WMF or yourself to face legal ramifications over the content included/hosted, Anyway thanks again for remaining patient and calm throughout, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk20:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - As far as I can see I've removed all of the content from all articles, I've done various searches relating to keywords of the previous content and not getting any results so hoping i've removed all of the content, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk21:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@W;ChangingUsername Too late - everything I listed above has now been deleted, You're more than welcome to start an RFC on having side effects listed here but given it's listed on any EN articles and given we're not a medical website - chances are there would be no consensus to host such information anyway, –Davey2010Talk22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what information would go into a wikipedia article, or why someone would search it, other than for things like effects/side effects, pharmacology, chemistry, pregnancy category and so on. Nor do i see what info could go in from a reference (like a paper from a study) besides these. It would be challenging to make long and informative articles without these info W;ChangingUsername (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding information which English Wikipedia includes English Wikipedia includes most of this information, and I support restoring that. At the English Wikipedia Medical Manual of Style there are recommended section headings for drugs. "Side effects" is the same as "Adverse effects", "Medical uses" is always the first section and is "who can take it", "Dosage" English Wikipedia does not report and does not recommend including, "caution" is "drug interactions", and pregnancy goes in a section called "special populations" at the bottom although we frequently single out pregnancy as an extra-special, special case and put national regulatory pregnancy codes in the infobox. Overall most of this is essential information which is safe to include when backed by reliable sources. Talking through at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine could be helpful for confirming best practices. Everyone wants dosage also but the situation is that there is significant variation in medical recommendations country to country, in addition to the matter being very sensitive patient to patient. It is fine to talk generally about the effects of not enough, too much, or just write, but do not name numbers. Blue Rasberry (talk)17:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against some of these simplifications. While "adverse effects" and "side effects" mean the same thing, "medical uses" and "who can take it" are two different things. "Drug interactions" and "caution" are two completely different things.
This is an issue, too, and goes back to what AuntOf6 and Davey2010 have mentioned. If we sound too much like a medication pamphlet, it is dangerous. Not only is it unencyclopedic, it can cause legal issues.
The word "drug interactions" was chosen because it is a medical term, and has a broader scope than most "cautions"; it includes a more encyclopedic scope of information. These medicine articles aren't made specifically for those who are taking the medication, these articles are made for those who want to learn more about the subject.
I bring this up mainly as a warning to be very careful when editing these articles. Even though something is true and is backed up by a source, it can still be dangerous if it disproportionately adds certain types of information. MrMeAndMrMeTalk20:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally seperate idea:What if we just made a template to put on top of every medical related article with a disclaimer saying "We are not a doctor and don't trust any medical advice from here" or some variety of that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather it just be worded in ways that didn't tell people what to do but I guess if that cannot be achieved then sure I'd settle for a disclaimer, I mean there's nothing stopping anyone from finding the information online anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk11:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are phrased that way in the source. The article mentions in 'side effects' that in the medicine box there will be a pamphlet. There are a lot of sites for information online but simple wiki may be their only source. W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open – cast your vote[change source]
The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.
Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.
After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.
If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.
I suspect that Simple-wiki should come up with a checklist of things that should be done, when one starts an article about a star (or a star in Space).--Such a checklist should maybe have recommended sources, about "new et cetera" stars. Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC) / 2001:2020:309:AE06:BC0A:B191:9A35:7ADA[reply]
In my opinion, such a checklist is generally not very neccessary — if someone wants to make a guide like this, they make it on their userspace, such as the one AuntOf6 made. Since many wikipedians have their own different opinions about what should be in an article, it is difficult to make a well made main page that goes beyond a simple idea such as to Be Bold. MrMeAndMrMeTalk14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2MASS J04285096-2253227 is a red-link (at English-wiki), and mentioned in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brown_dwarfs#Unconfirmed_brown_dwarfs . --I am thinking it should get USERIFY / USERFY, or be QD.--Please consider doing one or the other in a timely manner, so that the user will "get a message" that articles have to be of a certain standard, in stead of flooding us with half-a$$ sub-stubs. 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are notable per en:NASTRO or en:NASTCRIT. This is fairly obviously not notable, but I am not sure that it necessarily falls under QD. Would it be possible for an admin to mass delete these pages, or does it all have to be put through RFD?(or maybe just one RFD page for all of IP's articles?) MrMeAndMrMeTalk15:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user that started the articles, last edited at 13:03, 26 June 2024.--If possible, consider tagging most of the articles, in regard to notability.--I am thinking that we should see if we can accent the positives, so to speak, in regard to that wikipedia-user.--So, any QD can wait a day or two or a half week, in my view. (As long as articles have relevant tags.) --Thoughts? 2001:2020:309:AE06:91C2:2F5C:DA4:E781 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another update: WOH G17, was created at 16:58 .--En-wiki has deleted their article (not notable); link, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WOH_G17 .--That article should be QD for not being encyclopedic and/or not being wikified.--USERFY? I would not bother with that article. 2001:2020:309:AE06:BD15:72C7:4DB0:35C6 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC) /OP[reply]
What you are saying, and what i said, are two different things.--No worries, I expect that any answer at English-wiki will be illuminating (and quite possibly helpful for this thread too).--I suggest we wait and see where the chips may fall. 2001:2020:301:A9E4:D9A9:D130:F839:7819 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cactusisme: If I understand correctly what you're talking about, I've seen that happen when I reply to something on a page -- all the "reply" links disappear. I was able to fix it by clearing the cache of the page. en:Help:Purge explains different ways of doing that. Let me know if you need more help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dark mode for logged-out users coming soon![change source]
Hi everyone, for the past year, the Web team at the Wikimedia Foundation has been working on dark mode. This work is part of the Accessibility for Reading initiative that introduces changes to the Vector 2022 and Minerva skins. It improves readability, and allows everyone, both logged-out and logged-in users, to customize reading-focused settings.
Since early this year, dark mode has been available as a beta feature on both the mobile and the desktop website. We have been collaborating with template editors and other technical contributors to prepare wikis for this feature. This work included fixing templates and ensuring that many pages can appear with dark mode without any accessibility issues. We would like to express immense gratitude to everyone involved in this. Because so much has been done, over the next three weeks, we will be releasing the feature to all Wikipedias!
Deployment configuration and timeline
Tier 1 and 2 Wikipedias: wikis where the number of issues in dark mode when compared to light mode is not significant. These wikis will receive dark mode for both logged-in and logged-out users. Some small issues might still exist within templates, though. We will be adding ways to report these issues so that we can continue fixing templates together with editors.
Tier 3 Wikipedias: wikis where the number of issues in dark mode when compared to light mode is significant. These wikis will only receive dark mode for logged-in users. We would like to make dark mode available to all users. However, some wikis still require work from communities to adapt templates. Similar to the group above, these wikis will also receive a link for reporting issues that will help identify remaining issues.
Week of July 1: mobile website (Minerva skin) on the Tier 1 Wikipedias (including simple English Wikipedia)
Week of July 15: desktop website (Vector 2022 skin) on all Wikipedias; mobile website: logged-in and logged-out on the Tier 2 Wikipedias, logged-in only on the Tier 3 Wikipedias
How to turn on dark mode
The feature will appear in the Appearance menu alongside the options for text and width. Depending on compatibility and technical architecture, some pages might not be available in dark mode. For these pages, a notice will appear in the menu providing more information.
How to make dark mode even better!
If you would like to help to make more pages dark-mode friendly, go to our previous message and see the section "What we would like you to do (template editors, interface admins, technical editors)".
Support ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 18:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Done - As far as I can see I've removed all of the content from all articles, I've done various searches relating to keywords of the previous content and not getting any results so hoping i've removed all of the content, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I think the user is blocked from articles and template creation Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
-- Auntof6 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
