The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Are the editors on Simple English Wikipedia in their own little world?
SL93
post Mon 21st May 2012, 12:41pm
Post #1


Neophyte


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 10th Sep 2011, 12:43am
Member No.: 65,533

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I noticed that the notability guidelines on Simple English Wikipedia are the same as the English Wikipedia so I thought that I could create a notable stub as a test, but that test revealed much. It was quickly tagged for quick deletion as not notable despite three reviews in major media sources such as the Los Angeles Times.

I figured that speedy deletion would work the same way on the English Wikipedia because the guidelines were the same, but I guess I was way wrong. The criteria are similar, but how they go about it is odd.

I talked to an admin there about speedy deletions. Apparently my description of how speedy deletion works on the English Wikipedia is wrong even though the editor is on the other Wikipedia as well. The editor said that if something doesn't claim notability, but is notable based on significant coverage, it can be deleted with quick deletion and that it works the same way on the English Wikipedia. Huh?

"Claiming notability stops an article from being speedy deleted, but notability does as well. If an article claims notability, it can still be considered non-notable if there is no coverage. If it shows notability, it should not be deleted under any circumstance. I have been participating in speedy deletion for a long time and that is how speedy deletion works there." was what I said, but apparently I don't know what I'm talking about. I didn't add that notable articles could still be merged, but that wouldn't change anything.

Then it went to requests for deletion because an admin from the English Wikipedia said it was notable and removed the speedy deletion tag. Of course the only two people that said keep in the RfD were experienced English Wikipedia editors. Apparently, the other editors in the discussion said that I need to edit the article to their subjective opinions of notability. I did find a review in a scholarly journal, but apparently a review no matter where doesn't show notability.

This may seem like a rant, but I want some clarification. Is this the norm in regards to notability on the Simple English Wikipedia? I admit that the stub is poorly written, but I'm not used to writing articles simply. Being poorly written (like most articles there) is no reason to delete it if it is notable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Mon 21st May 2012, 2:16pm
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...merican_Writing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cri...edy_deletion#a7

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...etion_policy#a4:

QUOTE
Any article can be quickly deleted if it:

[...]

#Is about '''people, groups, companies or websites that do not claim to be [[:en:Wikipedia:Notability|notable]]'''. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not say ''why'' it is important. If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous [[Wikipedia:Requests for deletion|RfD]], the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead.


I believe that they're saying that the introduction must mention why the subject is significant. Try mentioning the subject's impact and who it influenced.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...8&oldid=2934140:

QUOTE
*'''Delete''' Having an article on the English Wikipedia is not a good rationale for having the page here. Per [[WP:NOT]], we write only about the "common" topics. I do not believe that this is one of the "common" topics so no article needs to or should be written about it. Because no article is needed, no user space drafts are needed. [[User:Either way|Either way]] ([[User talk:Either way|talk]]) 22:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


In addition, keep in mind that the Simple English Wikipedia is the dumbed down version of enwiki, so its subject matter is narrower than enwiki's subject matter. The Simple English Wikipedia only accepts "common topics".

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Mon 21st May 2012, 2:23pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Mon 21st May 2012, 2:32pm
Post #3


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 21st May 2012, 10:16am) *
http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...8&oldid=2934140:

QUOTE
*'''Delete''' Having an article on the English Wikipedia is not a good rationale for having the page here. Per [[WP:NOT]], we write only about the "common" topics. I do not believe that this is one of the "common" topics so no article needs to or should be written about it. Because no article is needed, no user space drafts are needed. [[User:Either way|Either way]] ([[User talk:Either way|talk]]) 22:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


In addition, keep in mind that the Simple English Wikipedia is the dumbed down version of enwiki, so its subject matter is narrower than enwiki's subject matter. The Simple English Wikipedia only accepts "common topics".


http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti...2&oldid=2759275

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...change_proposal

Actually, they got rid of the "common subjects" rule in August 2011.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez: Mon 21st May 2012, 2:32pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Mon 21st May 2012, 8:30pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



Yes, the administrators on Simple English often have a poor comprehension of English. I sympathise but it does cause problems. The "common subjects" rule cannot be enforced because there can never be consensus 9real consensus anyway) on what is a common subject.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Deskana
post Wed 6th June 2012, 11:04pm
Post #5


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed 31st May 2006, 7:18pm
Member No.: 233

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I suspect simplewiki does not get many views, especially not compared to enwiki. Any time someone in real life mentions it to me, they ask me if it's a joke or if it's serious.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th 8 17, 7:38pm