Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk

Change links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.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

heart attack vs myocardial infarction

I think the term myocardial infarction might be technical for some readers. Couldn't you replace the term with heart attack so the article can be less technical? Angela Maureen (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have moved it over. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it back. If you think it should be changed, please have a wider discussion first. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People use heart attack to talk about more than one thing. There are health problems that cause the heart to stop in other ways. People call these problems "heart attacks". But, people only say myocardial infarction when they mean this particular heart-stopping problem.
This is why editors might choose the complicated name. However, the simpler name is easier to read. (I don't care which name is used.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to make "heart attack" a disambiguation page. Many people call a "myocardial infarction" an "MI." Would it be better to use that name? StevenJ81 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary meaning of "heart attack" is myocardial infarction, so "heart attack" should redirect there. We could have Heart attack (disambiguation) if we have other meanings for it. If you're suggesting we use the term "MI" instead of "myocardial infarction", that can be done in individual articles (after using the full term once), but it shouldn't be the page name: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations for the guideline on that. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing:, just FYI, the heart doesn't necessarily stop during an MI. That is cardiac arrest, a separate thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that was one reason why I think "heart attack" is a better term for us, because it is not really ambiguous. Whereas an infarct, medically speaking, is a small area of dead tissue caused by an inadequate blood supply. But "myocardial infarction" is so much more impressive! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mac, I'm not following your thinking here. Why does the heart not necessarily stopping during an MI make "heart attack" a better article title? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that (in this case) there is no extra precision to be got from using the latinate term. We should always prefer common names unless it results in a concept being poorly described. In this case the common phrase is perfectly OK. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the common term weren't ambiguous and often used incorrectly, but that's not the case here. It may be OK to use the common term in an article, but the page should have the more exact title. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to reevaluate DYK?

The DYK template on the front page hasn't been updated in 2 months now. There are 3 hooks in the queue right now, and none have been added to the queue since January 15. The DYK process has been going through a lot of long lulls, and I think it might be time to think if it's worth keeping as part of our front page. Only (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally really like DYK and don't know what to put in replace of that. I think it's worth keeping if a few editors can get back actively into it. There's no real harm of updating the DYK template every 1-2 months. Eurodyne (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have been here before. The one thing we don't want on the front page is poorly organised DYKs, with language problems and/or inadequate sources. Therefore the system depends on having at least one experienced and competent editor to supervise it. Over the last year or so Goblin has done the supervising, and it has done well. Things happen in real life which mean we sometimes lack a key person in one of our areas of activity. Then, with DYK, it goes into a lull. We can live with that, I think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that we just accept this as norm. We accept that we're going to have long lulls at times at DYK. I'm not sure why we should accept it. The desire of the system is to have it updated more than once every couple of months. It's inconsistent that some spans we're updating every week then suddenly nothing for months. As a viewer or casual reader of our front page, you might get the impression that we've stopped caring/editing if you're seeing the same hooks for a couple of months. Only (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or it might encourage them to help out? Wikipedia has no deadline and being that we are a very small wiki, there are going to be things like this that spring up. Some wikis, with usership higher than ours, don't update their front page at all for months at a time. -DJSasso (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the holding area and need someone to move one of my approved hooks, "Macadamia nut" into the holding area as well. Let me know what you think. Eurodyne (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Global proposal] m.Wikipedia.org: (all) Edit pages

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PGA and PVGA

I've got a few articles awaiting review there. I'd appreciate it if someone could especially attend to the PVGA and possibly promote it. If anyone would like to help me "peer review" the GA, leave me a note on my talk page. Eurodyne (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (March 2015)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Help us coordinate Wikipedia Library's distribution of accounts, communication of access opportunities and more! Please join our team at our new coordinator page.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Inspire Campaign: Improving diversity, improving content

This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge!

(Sorry for the English - please translate this message!) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Result: I must say I was not an active editor here when the original ban was put in to effect. And having reviewed this request, and past discussions it concerns me that Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) has seen fit to bring up other peoples character and their past in an effort to somehow clear Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) of that users wrong doing. If anything that proves the fact that Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) does not appreciate the ban that was put into place, nor has any remorse for that user's previous actions. As a result the community ban remains in effect, and no other review of this ban will be considered for a time of 1 year from today 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) . -- Enfcer (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Purplebackpack89's community ban

Hi all,

Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) has requested an unblock, which means we need to re-consider the community ban placed against him. The original discussion can be found here. The last discussion about this can be found here. -Barras talk 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - As before, there seems to be no expression of understanding the block. The user's only rationale for unblocking is "because it's been a long time." Only (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - apparently the same reason I have used over the last three and a half years still apply. Support continued ban; it's not like his absence has harmed any articles, either. I also propose further refusal of appeal(s) for another extended duration, but I will leave the closing administrator to think of a duration he deems fit. Chenzw  Talk  12:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • To date there has been no assurance that the series of escalations (issues with civility), which led to the final indef block, will not happen again. Such problems create a poisonous atmosphere for collaboration on this wiki. I note that you did not start off with one indef block, but with multiple blocks concerning POV pushing, edit warring, civility issues, escalating all the way up to indef. Chenzw  Talk  16:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Only and Chenzw pretty much sum it up. He still does not seem to get why he was banned. I would agree with Chenzw's proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No the comments (mine atleast) are specific to your unblock request comment you just made. It showed no sign of you understanding why you were blocked or remorse for it. No promise to no longer have such problems or anything like that. All it said was that its been a long time so you should unblock me now. Which is pretty much exactly what you said the previous time and were rejected for it. You were even told that you needed to show that you understood the problems and that you would not continue them. Instead you came back here with an almost identical request of its been a long time so you should unblock. So it doesn't surprise me people are saying you still don't get it. Especially since you again repeated that your actions didn't harm articles, when it was made clear to you that the community believed your actions did harm articles. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennedy admitted to his problems and promised not to continue them. As you state in your comment, you don't seem to believe you did anything wrong, which leads me to believe you will continue to edit the way you did before. which thus means the ban continues to be necessary to prevent you from disrupting the wiki. Your block didn't start at indef. You had many blocks before that. You were given something like 9 blocks prior to finally pushing the community over the edge to issue an indef. You were given plenty of opportunities to change and you didn't. And your comments here lead me to believe you still haven't. I am sorry. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response on the users talk page in relation to this. Kennedy (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of this comment by PBP89 on his talk page. -Barras talk 15:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Instead of stating on talk page and unblock request "the only way to find out if I have changed or not is to unblock for awhile", is to instead list specific ways you have changed for the better and tell exactly how you plan on being a good editor this time. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 17:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


What can I do here now?

Hello, I am interesting to read and write here in Simple English. My English is not good, I learned in my youth Russian at first foreign language, English was the language of the "enemies" ;). Today is English a world wide famous language, and I need to read English in many countries. I think, you can me help for better understand Simple English, an I can help you for better make Simple English wiki, isn t it?.

What can I do here now?

Greatings Mikota3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikota3 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikota3: I have replied on your talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Auntof6, thank you very much for your answer! --Mikota3 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&oldid=5040988"