wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 157
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Article feedback
Hi, Could editors/admins etc review User:Davey2010/sandbox2/VW Golf and let me know below what you think or what works and what doesn't please?,
I'm 50/50 on whether it's cited to death and whether the infoboxes are needed (I'm partially convinced the infoboxes have made it more complex than it needs to be but maybe it's just me),
I welcome all feedback and criticism good or bad too, Many thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 15:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- The article seems to divide sections quite a bit. Maybe make them like this? LOLHWAT (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- It does but I wanted it in a way that made sense - For instance not every sport model was made in the same year so combining it into one wouldn't work, Apologies if I've missed it but regarding your link I'm lost ? Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting those sections could be formatted ====like this==== LOLHWAT (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your suggestion, I've removed the section titles and have to say it looks a lot better so many thanks for your suggestion/help :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was suggesting those sections could be formatted ====like this==== LOLHWAT (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- It does but I wanted it in a way that made sense - For instance not every sport model was made in the same year so combining it into one wouldn't work, Apologies if I've missed it but regarding your link I'm lost ? Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, you don't need an infobox for every section. One is plenty. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Lee - I've removed those too, Many thanks for your feedback it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Davey2010 Looks great. I have two critiques for you.
- Way too much bolding throughout the article. I would try to put the bolding in the beginning of each section as it looks really weird when you are reading a sentence and 1/2 way or 3/4 way through a six word sentence boom you have bold lettering.
- Double check your references for errors.
- One such example is "Countdown to the new Golf: Golf Mk II – a perfected concept". VW Press. 16 October 2019. p. 2. Retrieved 10 April 2024 {{cite web}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help). There is a script that will show you those errors too so you know if something is wrong with it. Some can be done with reFill and Citoid, however, some like this one have to done by hand. I do love the article though. I miss the old beatles.
- Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PotsdamLamb, Many thanks for your helpful feedback it's much appreciated, Same here to be honest I miss all the old cars, everything had character back then and looked different too! :(
- So I've removed the bolding but have instead bolded the Golf name in each section and have left those that are called different names in bold and I've fixed the cite, Hows it look now?, Many thanks, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk 00:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Davey2010 That looks better. At the bottom in the hidden category section I see user pages with reference errors. I would look at all of your references and see what’s going on as preview is not showing any issues. It can be a / at the end of the url or title or some oddball thing. Some look like they are meant to be notes and not references. Also, I did run citation expander on it to see if that would work and it didn’t. On your references you can change anything in all caps to standard caps. Do you have a history section you can add at the top of the article about maybe why the concept was invented, any ideas why or what it was made for? I think that would be a great starter for it outside of when it first started being made? Crash derby’s with beetles were my favorite thing back in the day to watch as a kid. They never gave up! Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've added url-access=subscription to a few cites,
- Regarding the Stromer book; bizarrely it shows as normal, if I use incognito then it doesn't - i can get around it by going back to the book home page (no preview), click preview and then find the page number - that makes it then work but if I then grab that page number link and repaste in a whole new incognito window It doesn't work .... so I have no idea what's causing that (i'm assuming it's some sort of error with the Google Books site?)
- Regarding Forbes; I've added archived urls so that way it can still be shown/previewed,
- Many thanks for your helpful feedback it's much appreciated, Many thanks, Warm regards, –Davey2010Talk 12:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Davey2010 That looks better. At the bottom in the hidden category section I see user pages with reference errors. I would look at all of your references and see what’s going on as preview is not showing any issues. It can be a / at the end of the url or title or some oddball thing. Some look like they are meant to be notes and not references. Also, I did run citation expander on it to see if that would work and it didn’t. On your references you can change anything in all caps to standard caps. Do you have a history section you can add at the top of the article about maybe why the concept was invented, any ideas why or what it was made for? I think that would be a great starter for it outside of when it first started being made? Crash derby’s with beetles were my favorite thing back in the day to watch as a kid. They never gave up! Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 03:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Davey2010 Looks great. I have two critiques for you.
- Many thanks Lee - I've removed those too, Many thanks for your feedback it's greatly appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Mentoring program
Recently the mentoring feature has been mentioned with some users saying that they wish it to be turned on (only an admin can do this). Should we turn it on? fr33kman 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think if we have people who want to do mentorship, then we should turn on the system. I've done it on enwiki before, and didn't get lots out of it, but then it's better to have something than nothing at all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- If we have enough mentors to keep it running, I don't see why it would be a problem. We could always just turn it back off if it ends up being a problem. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you have any question about it, let me know. I work with the team in charge of this project. Some ressources:
- Mentors personal management:
- Options to manage mentors:
- Documentation and ressources:
- "Enough mentors" mean 1 mentor for each set of 500 new accounts per month, with a minimum of 3 mentors. At your wiki, given the number of new accounts, it means 3 mentors minimum.
- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Three seems very doable. I'm happy to sign up and give it another go if it would help. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we have 6 or 7 mentors already (myself included). Based on the new accounts link about 90% of them are sock puppets if not more. FYI I posted this on WP:AN as well requesting it be turned on. The way I see it is this would be a great alternative to the ENWP AfC boards as we would be able to see what our mentors are doing and we have enough people who know the history of our socks that we could get them blocked. One thing I will note though is that if someone is blocked, they will remain as a mentee for up to 12 hours. I found that out when a mentee I had was a SP and I went to media to inquire and that’s what I was told. Any where between 1 min up to 12 hours depending on when the system purges. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- 90% of new users are sockpuppets? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lee look at the ratios. We have more IP editors than named editors. The new named editors get (for the most part) C/U blocked. We do get some from ENWP and once in a while we get others from their home wiki that hop on here. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- You think we have over 800 sockpuppet accounts created every month? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lee - You have to take into account a lot of things for this wiki. We have a lot of “educational users” (those whose teachers are teaching them how to use WP) and they SEWP since we are simple. That is about 100 users or so every 1/4. About another 200 come on to make one edit, edit war or vote (not going there with these 3), we have some that stay, some that go, we have the ONESTRIKE policy, and I’m not sure how accurate that graph is because if we really had that many users editing we wouldn’t have itsy bitsy articles. So I would say roughly 90% of those are CU blocked when you take away everything else. If you look at our CU board they find a lot of farms too and we don’t know how many accounts that entails, then we have GRP who makes, god knows, how many accounts then we have global locks for CU that happen. So I feel pretty confident in my answer of 90%. So that takes us to a little over one hundred new users. If we want exact numbers I’m sure we can obtain them via special pages and with a script that marks the blocked and glock’d account plus number of edits plus if they even made an edit. I have seen on IRC where accounts are made but no changes are made to SEWP. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should not be hesitant on turning Mentorship on: it is the best way to figure out what is would be the volume of questions. ONSTRIKE Sockpuppets aren't likely to disturb mentors as they prefer to keep their profile low. Teachers and students, on the contrary, might be really happy to have a human being available to help them.
- Remember that any admin can turn the feature on at Special:EditGrowthConfig. I can do this for you if you want.
- Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Trizek (WMF) It has been brought up to our admins for their decision. They would have to make the decision as they run SEWP and we (as non-admins) would not want to step on their toes. They may want to turn it on, leave it off, take a vote. It’s been posted here and on the admin notice board. @Fr33kman have you gotten any insights from other admins on this? Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update PDL! Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Trizek (WMF) It has been brought up to our admins for their decision. They would have to make the decision as they run SEWP and we (as non-admins) would not want to step on their toes. They may want to turn it on, leave it off, take a vote. It’s been posted here and on the admin notice board. @Fr33kman have you gotten any insights from other admins on this? Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 10:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lee - You have to take into account a lot of things for this wiki. We have a lot of “educational users” (those whose teachers are teaching them how to use WP) and they SEWP since we are simple. That is about 100 users or so every 1/4. About another 200 come on to make one edit, edit war or vote (not going there with these 3), we have some that stay, some that go, we have the ONESTRIKE policy, and I’m not sure how accurate that graph is because if we really had that many users editing we wouldn’t have itsy bitsy articles. So I would say roughly 90% of those are CU blocked when you take away everything else. If you look at our CU board they find a lot of farms too and we don’t know how many accounts that entails, then we have GRP who makes, god knows, how many accounts then we have global locks for CU that happen. So I feel pretty confident in my answer of 90%. So that takes us to a little over one hundred new users. If we want exact numbers I’m sure we can obtain them via special pages and with a script that marks the blocked and glock’d account plus number of edits plus if they even made an edit. I have seen on IRC where accounts are made but no changes are made to SEWP. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 22:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- You think we have over 800 sockpuppet accounts created every month? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lee look at the ratios. We have more IP editors than named editors. The new named editors get (for the most part) C/U blocked. We do get some from ENWP and once in a while we get others from their home wiki that hop on here. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- 90% of new users are sockpuppets? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- I believe we have 6 or 7 mentors already (myself included). Based on the new accounts link about 90% of them are sock puppets if not more. FYI I posted this on WP:AN as well requesting it be turned on. The way I see it is this would be a great alternative to the ENWP AfC boards as we would be able to see what our mentors are doing and we have enough people who know the history of our socks that we could get them blocked. One thing I will note though is that if someone is blocked, they will remain as a mentee for up to 12 hours. I found that out when a mentee I had was a SP and I went to media to inquire and that’s what I was told. Any where between 1 min up to 12 hours depending on when the system purges. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 21:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Three seems very doable. I'm happy to sign up and give it another go if it would help. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
A redirect goes to a bad place
Buddhist texts goes to a small little known series of buddhist texts. This is not an appropriate redirect target because lots of things like the Lotus Sutra are also Buddhist texts Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Immanuelle IMO, the redirect should be deleted based on Buddhist texts from ENWP. I will nominate it for QD and see what an admin thinks. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Sesame Street
Can someone take a look at all the changes an IP is making on this article and remove anything not correct please? I am about to head out or I would do it. One I saw was referring to Elmo as a "meerkat like creature." Last time I checked, Elmo did not have a tail, was spotted, or came from Africa. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 17:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @PotsdamLamb: The changes did not look like they were correct, so I reverted them. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @QuicoleJR Thanks! I didn’t think so either. Thanks, and be well! - PDLTalk to me!Please don't eat da 🐑! 18:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)