Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 64

WP:ENGVAR

Now I've seen people use this against me and everyone agrees with it (such as that meter/metre thing a couple months ago) but when I use it against them they shoot it down saying this isn't en (such as here), now we have to be consistent, either we use or we don't. There is no case-by-case basis here. So I propose we create our own version of en's WP:ENGVAR here. Thoughts?--  † CM₁₆  01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. What's wrong with listing the alternate spellings at the intro to the article? It's not like we're being inconsistent throughout the article. We're just listing them in the first line as "or" statements. Why is that a huge problem? Either way (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because in this case it can get confusing to some readers.--  † CM₁₆  01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, it could be clearing things up for them. "Hmm...I've never seen 'color' before, but I have seen 'colour,' I wonder if they're the same thing." Either way (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We can save this argument for the articles talk page or PGA section, right now the focus is if we should adopt WP:ENGVAR, Either.--  † CM₁₆  01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to set arbitrary rules for everything? Why not simply take each article on a case-by-case basis, and decide what's best for a particular page? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What Juliancolton said. Common sense outrules everything else. Either way (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Common sense isn't always obvious and therefore that why we should have base rules.--  † CM₁₆  01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not we include alternative spellings of the word "colour" is most certainly not a base rule. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. ENGVAR doesnt' cover this situation at all. Either way (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The color/colour thing has nothing to do with this *puts hands in head*. Can we please discuss whether to add WP:ENGVAR here or not? But I will say that WP:ENGVAR does say be consistent.--  † CM₁₆  01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And we are consistent throughout that article. The "or" statements at the beginning of the article have nothing to do with the consistency of the article. Either way (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Be consistent" != "Only include one version for bureaucracy's sake, even if it leads to potential confusion". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but do you agree to add our own version of WP:ENGVAR or not, Julian?--  † CM₁₆  02:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've made it pretty clear; but if not, then my stance is that we shouldn't be focusing on the creation of arbitrary rules for the sake of it. (And if we did create WP:ENGVAR, what about the other hundred or so MOS guidelines?) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we create them as needed, right now I see a big need for WP:ENGVAR, this is he second dispute since December over a English variation that I know of.--  † CM₁₆  02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I fail to see any sort of "dispute". Several editors have agreed that the alternative spelling should stay. This is called consensus. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Two or three editors is not a consensus.--  † CM₁₆  02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Right then, so one editor user is? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, why do you think I'm still waiting for others to comment?--  † CM₁₆  03:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's really common sense and depends on the context of an article. For instance, 10 Downing Street's door is black in colour, yet the color of the White House is white. The Empire State Building is x meters tall, but Nelson's Column is x metres tall. HOWEVER, and this is the key thing, there is never any reason for changing the version that has already been added just for the sake of it Soup Dish (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So I wonder why they are making such a fuss, about taking off their pants, they are wearing underwear.... ;) --Eptalon (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I do not think that what enwp has as ENGVAR is a good idea here. This is because we are catering to a crowd were many people have learned English as a second language. Many of these people, especially if they are at a starting level, have trouble getting the form right at all. We cannot then ask them to to use color because they use meter (both are US spelling), and to know that in most Commonwealth countries pants does not refer to underwear. What would be an easy alternative to that would be to ask for consistency in the form used, ie. if they settle for color they always use that spelling of the word, but without any implications for other forms, so even if they use color, they can use traveller (which is the Commonwealth form). This does also not rule out giving alternative spellings in the intro (we need to create those redirects anyway, so we might as well say so in the intro of the article. Not giving them might confuse more than it helps). On a side note: English is also widely used (Official language) in South Africa, Belize, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, probably Burma/Myanmar, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Namibia, Lesotho, Sierra Leone ... (53 countries total), so limiting this to US or Commonwealth spelling is probably narrow-sighted as well. --Eptalon (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are they not all Commonwealth countries, anyway? If not, nearly all are. Soup Dish (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is actually not the problem. The main problem is that in some parts, the English varieties are creole languages or pidgins, or they are heavily influenced by such. They also often use loanwords from these languages. My point is: As many of our readers did not learn English as their mother tongue we cannot expect them to be able to differentiate between different forms/local varieties of English. Since they cannot do that, ENGVAR as proposed on ENWP is pointless here. --Eptalon (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada for example has its own version of english as well. A hybrid of uk-en and us-en. Either way engvar is policy here already due to our policy that says if the policy doesn't exist here yet we fall onto en's policies. That being said, I don't think listing an alternate common spelling at the beginning of an article necessarily violates engvar. -Djsasso (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A perhaps very simple (guideline, policy?) to overrule engvar:

• Use a spelling of a word that is correct.
• Be consistent in the spelling of the word, always spell a word the same way
• Do not be afraid to give different spellings of the word, if that helps understanding.

What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. -Djsasso (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think y'all are missing the point of this, the point is to set base rules to prevent editor confusion, and I never propose to copy enWP's directly to here I proposed we create our own to fit our needs. Like I've said I've been involved in two disputes where this might have helped. I do believe we have to do something to solve this so the confusions never happen again. That's the point. And if we don't adopt it or our own version, I personally don't want to see anybody use it against me or others again, that would continue the "I'll use it when it's convenient for me" thing.--  † CM₁₆  18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) CM16: do you think the three items I mentioned above would suit that purpose? - I have also given many reasons why we can not really take the ENWP version and apply it here, without modification. As Djsasso pointed out, we do need our own version (because otherwise we would default to the ENWP one).--Eptalon (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good, but I would also add the rule use American English for American article, British English for British article, etc. Not everyone has common sense, this is just a precautionary rule.--  † CM₁₆  17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is actually the part of en:wp:engvar we are trying to strip out, because we can't expect non-english as a first language speakers to know or understand the differences. One of the reasons we don't want to use en's version is because of that, since we are simple we can't be so picky and choosy. While I would expect english editors to do that, I don't think we can expect non-english users to do so. -Djsasso (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it could still be a recommendation. For example, if someone write in American English in the article Canada, someone else could, rightly, change the spelling to the Canadian version. Without that, it would be (arguably) against policy to change the spelling. I think that would make the most sense. However, it should be worded in a way to not discourage users from using the wrong version, or could ever be construed as a reason for blocking. EhJJ^TALK 04:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know why every time me or someone else proposes certain things to make the wiki better the same three or four people shoot it down with crap like "that'll make us too much like en", "it won't work", "we shouldn't limit ours selves" etc. etc. I'm starting to think these people are afraid of change, and no I won't name names.--  † CM₁₆  05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"things to make the wiki better" is very subjective. Maybe people are opposing because there is a general consensus that it won't make the wiki better? Just something for you to ponder. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that what you proposed is already in existance here (as mentioned above), and that what we have proposed is actually a change. So it would appear that it is you that is against the change. -Djsasso (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I see no problem at all to add something that says, that if possible the localised version of English should be used. However, from the wording it has to be clear that this is optional, and it should not be enforced on those people who did not learn English as their first language. After all, such dependencies are exactly what we are trying to get rid of...--Eptalon (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Next Simple News

Next Delivery: 3rd April 2011

change

We're late, late, late, so I've pushed back the delivery date. Please help out if you can, write an article, update RfX news etc. Thanks Kennedy (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also have a look here if you wish to be interviewed for QandA! Kennedy (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Or... just look here for what needs to be done etc etc ;) Goblin 10:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didn't see that. Fair do's Kennedy (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries ;). Wasn't really aimed at you anyway! Cheers, Goblin 11:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I know this probably won't work because editors won't participate, but here goes nothing. This page has just had a discussion about editors working together for GAs and VGAs, and the VGA nomination page has discussed how it would be nice to improve important articles. One of the articles suggested was Ghandi. en:Ghandi is an FA, so it's obviously comprehensive. I am proposing that we get a group of editors (15?), copy the English article on Ghandi, and assign each editor one section to simplify. We then put the sections together, making a near VGA. The red links might be harder, but I'm sure people will get it done if it meant getting an article like Ghandi to VGA. This might be crazy enough to work. If you want to help, or have any questions, please discuss below. Cheers :) By the way, I would be willing to facilitate this.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll help and participate. Barras (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Same here. иιƒкч? 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. After being told by EHJJ that my efforts at PVGA and PGA were unlikely to generate any interest from anyone outside of the UK, I'm more than happy to kick on with something "notable". I'm no subject-matter expert in Ghandi but I'm good at copyediting, reference formating and other wiki-gnomish tasks. Feel free to call on me should you think I can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm game. Let me know what article you would like to collaborate on, and I'm on it. Wilhelm meis (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I could do one too. --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could add pile-on help promises :)  GARDEN  13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An idea

Hello all. I can remember that there was something like a Wikicup here on simple. I don't know, but I think it was stopped, because of inactivity, or so. I think we should start instead of this kind of cup an other one. I think about WP:PVGA and WP:PGA. It could be the same like the wicicup, but only with this two things. Something like: for every good article, you get one credit and for every very good article, you get 5 credits. The new cup should also be with a final, a semi-final and so on. All comments are welcome. Best regards, Barras (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say: Not only copy the FA's of the enWP. ;) --Barras (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I don't think it'll be popular with everyone else. I don't mind being a judge as I don't think I'm that good an editor (for writting (V)GAs, but I'd still like to ask for permission to make the red links on the proposed pages :). Regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it cause some people (like myself) aren't good at building articles to either of those statuses. Which would leave us out.--  † CM₁₆  20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also users needed, which help the others with comment and review etc. Regards, Barras (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  Most people will use that excuse ;) I don't think such a competition would be a great thing for such a young and developing Wikipedia as it will encourage nicking articles straight from en.wiki, which while an option isn't great for competitive editing.  GARDEN  20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need around 5 to 10 users for such a competition who participate active. The users who write articles aren't allow to vote. The other can help with comments or creating of stubs for the redlinks. And all users who don't participate at the competition have to vote. All users are needed, also users who aren't good in writting GA's or VGA's. Barras (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Snow funn at tall

Clearly a SPA troll account of some sort... I think something needs doing about it. Majorly talk 21:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Either way gave a last warning minutes ago. I would suggest a block for clear disruption but I think a very last warning is an okay measure in this case. (the 4chan memes are concerning however.)  GARDEN  21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I created a proposal on Ani. Best Regards, Barras (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Hello Comunity! I'm User:Vitorbraziledit, from Portuguese Wikipedia, and i'm edit some times here. So, i have a doubt: Can you vote here?

Thanks! Vitorbraziledit ^talk 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Our rules on voting are at WP:Voting. To learn about voting for a sysop [1], the specific rules are at Wikipedia:Criteria for administratorship#Who can vote. EhJJ^TALK 04:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, vote for what?  :/  GARDEN  09:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you can vote here on simple. You have over 50 edits and many of them in the main name space. So I would say it is ok, when you vote. But: Please do not only vote here on simpel, a few other edits are also nice ;) Regards, Barras (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

If nobody objects, I'd like to try to revive DYK, and I'm pretty sure I can maintain it. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it will be a complete zombie of a system. It's pretty dead now; it'll probably have maggots crawling over it's face and everything if you dig it up.  GARDEN  19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt (and it pains me to say this) we'd be able to sustain it. A one user process is never going to be main paged (in case that one user becomes inactive or w/e) so it kinda defeats the point. Other processes such as (V)GA are struggling, demotion etc - let's try and sustain those first.

Regards,

Goblin 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be relatively easy, actually; and if it fails, it can be removed just as quickly as it was implemented. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to part of it. --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 00:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I support it!Brainbox (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea. I like DYK and want to help with it, when I have more time (end may). Regards, Barras (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite liked DYK, but in the end it was impossible to maintain and was killed. If you/we can manadge to maintain it, then I'm in favour. Yottie ^=talk= 17:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not "killed" as you say (and emphasize); it died out due to inactivity. Either way (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Nominations are needed at T:TDYK! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Article demotions

Hello. Currently two articles have been nominated for demotion from their current status:

• Joss Whedon from GA.
• Cuban Missile Crisis from VGA.

Both have issues raised on their talk page. Please contribute to the process by either helping out with the issues or providing an opinion on whether the demotions should take place. Discussions take place at WP:PAD. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at them and do what I can. Kind regards, Yottie ^=talk= 11:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Inactive admins

Hello. In the interest of keeping the list of admins accurate, what would the community think of removing the admin tools of the currently inactive admins listed below:

We did a clear out a while ago, and I think it would be a good idea to remove their tools, as they haven't used them in a long time. Kennedy (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that we said a year without activity was good enough for a RfdA to be opened. Have any of these passed that mak? In which case, let's go for it. Goblin 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the above have not passed the one-year mark for inactivity. A good time will probably be October, but not now. Chenzw  Talk  09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, we could look to see if any of these users are/have been active at other projects. It could be a good indication as to whether they care coming back or not. Regards, Goblin 09:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't wait until october. We should send a message to the inactive admins and on the day of one year inactivity, a 'crat request the removal of the flag. That means e.g. Billz is inactive for one year on 8 May 2009, so we sent him a message 2 or 4 weeks before this year ends. (I think also we can send an email if possible). Regards, Barras (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In our last blitz I do believe we agreed on a one year inactive guideline. At which point a request for de-adminship gets put up. So if any of those fellows is past a year we can put them up, anyone else I don't think we should touch. -Djsasso (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably agree there. They're not using any bandwidth or anything so I feel it would be impolite to simply remove the bit.  GARDEN  17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Politika

Please, someone help with fixing this article!!! Need pictures, I have tried to send them, and saw that that is not allowed. Regards, --AleksA ツ 11:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Special:Upload, you should upload photos to Commons. Cheers, Dylan620 ^{Review me} 13:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We only allow free content images in this Wikipedia at this time. The English Wikipedia also allows fair use. The images that are on the English version of the article are not allowed here on the Simple English version of the article, at this time. EhJJ^TALK 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I don"t really want to spam every person that participated in my rfa, so here's a notice to say thanks to all of you who did. Yottie ^=talk= 07:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PAD

Hello. Today I demoted Joss Whedon, one of oldest good articles to a regular article after it sat at WP:PAD for 20 days without a sniff of interest. Currently Cuban Missile Crisis, a WP:VGA, is also ready to demoted. Is anyone interested in trying to attend to the numerous issues I've raised on the talk page? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Its been a year...

This user has been on Simple Wikipedia for 16 years, 7 months and 19 days.

Since I joined Simple.Wikipedia. Its been a great experience, and has taught me a lot. I hope its been as good a year for you as it has been for me! Kennedy (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :D Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 11:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kennedy! Hope the next year is just as great to you :D  GARDEN  17:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Kennedy,

This user has been on Simple Wikipedia for 17 years, 3 months and 13 days.

and it's been over a year and seven months for me.--  † CM₁₆  21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha thanks folks, I wasn't really looking for congratulations, and certainly not a competition, though. Thanks though! :) Kennedy (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stub cleanup...

Hello there,

we seem to have many articles like Providence, Kentucky (version at time of this post), which really only consist of one sentence. Personally, I think these are not helpful, as there is no information, a possible reader could get from the article. I therefore see too options:

• Extend to something worthy of a stub, that is add at least a sentence about population, and perhaps location
• Delete. The more notable ones will be re-created.

Personally, I am leaning towards deletion, but I want to bring it up here, so it can be discussed. --Eptalon (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is closely related to our requirements for VGAs (and more recently, a trend in PGA) to have no red links. Thus people are forced into creating stubs on things they may not be knowledgeable nor interested in. Deleting stubs for the sake of deletion will force a review of all VGAs to ensure they still meet the current criteria. I would, at the least, expand to include a reference. Stubs themselves are not harmful in any way, but unreferenced stubs are not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles like this really should qualify for quick deletion. "Has no content. This includes any article consisting only of links (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages" (emphasis mine). I know that's an unpopular opinion to hold here because some believe that stubs are very necessary because they can be expanded, but these stubs aren't being expanded. Per WP:NOT, "we write about the most common subjects so that people from every language can read the pages easily." I don't know if one sentence about a small town in Kentucky qualifies as one of the "most comment subjects." I'd be in favor of deleting these, or at least expanding them to show something other than "X, Y is a city in Y." Either way (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that a lot of those articles are bot generated (well, AWB if you want to get technical but AWB is just a bot in a box). --Chris 11:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Most communes, towns, villages on EN.wiki are also one line stubs. Why have them there and not here. I think keep them. Yottie ^=talk= 11:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, in order to be kept, they should provide a little info. The French communes are better, as they usually give a location, and perhaps population. As to the GA/VGA relevant stubs: most I have seen are longer than the example given above. --Eptalon (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record if I saw an article like that on enwiki I would happily speedy it per en:WP:CSD#A3 --Chris 11:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Eptalon, any way of identifying these stubs easily? How many are we talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) There are 428 in Category:Cities in Kentucky, most of which probably look like that. And thats just Kentucky. Given there are 52 states, with 400 articles each, that might be a few. Btw: your recent change to Providence improved the article a lot. --Eptalon (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, so we're probably going to reduce the Wikipedia by around 35%? Sounds worrying. And thanks, that change to Providence took about one minute. Perhaps we should set up a stub improvement taskforce rather than a "delete the Wikipedia" taskforce. If we all improve a dozen articles each (taking around 15 minutes) per day then with 15 or so editors we could get around 1,000 stubs a week up to a decent level. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't something like that be scriptable, so a bot could do it? --Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be positive, at least they are a beginning, and they are not doing any harm. I am all for a regular stub "blitz" to make them longer.Peterdownunder (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) For reference, since the article has now been changed, this was the version I was originally referring to. --Eptalon (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Settlements are inherently notable Soup Dish (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, again: I am not disputing their notability, all I was trying to say was that articles, like the one I gave as reference just above are unhelpful in their current form...--Eptalon (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eptalon and Either way. An article like XYZ is in ABC. isn't an article. That is like XYZ is born on... or a chair is in every flat. Where is the content. When I read an aricle about a town, then I want to know at least where this town is or how big the population is. If I look for a town, so I know that this town exists. But this articles don't say more like there is a town. On the other hand are around 20,000 articles a lot for this small wikipedia. There are 20,000 article with the sentence XYZ exists. We should work on the quality and not on the quantity. --Barras (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that something needs to be done about the stubs. The question is exactly what. I feel we should expand these stubs rather than swiftly wipe 35% of the Wikipedia out of existence. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Who has the time to edit 20,000 (boring) articles about small US-towns and expand them. Sorry, but so we can wait until 2015 that maybe the half of them are ok. Barras (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it took me about a minute to change the example article into a decent and useful stub. If all active editors are prepared to do a dozen each a day then we'll really improve the encyclopedia and reduce these uber-stubs by 1,000 a week. We need a collaborative effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe a stub is better than nothing, a drive by editor is more likely to expand a stub than create a new article. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A way forward

Ok, perhaps I spell out doom for some of those cities, but here is the truth: we probably can not save all of them. Here's a possible way forward (iterate for each state):

• Pick the 5 most important (capital, city by population/urban area/size/...)
• For each of them try to expand it to at least half a page (100 words or more)

A perhaps completely different question: do we have the top 20 urban areas/popluation centers of the US covered? What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what "important" US places are. They are, after all, inherently notable but also inherently dull unless someone can add to the bare facts. My suggestion is that unless we're happy to delete a massive portion of the Wikipedia then we should work to improve stubs. I don't really care for any of these US stubs but I'll be happy to spend a minute on each of them to prevent them from being deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically that's not what I was trying to say:

• Pick the most notable ones, and improve them (beyond what was done above), ie. beyond a mere stub; I am talking about an article of 50-100 words or more
• Delete the others

Remember, we do not need an (unhelpful) stub for every city in the US. So, the way forward would be:

• What are the 5 most important cities/agglomerations in (pick an US state, eg. Kentucky). Write/improve their articles to a 50-100 words stub. Do this for every state, then start over 5 next important ones.

If we can keep between 70 and 100 of the currently over 400 entries in Kentucky, I think we have done a good job.

On a completely different note, do we have decent articles on the the top 20 (or so) urban areas/population centers of the US?--Eptalon (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, and I'd go further than just "of the US". Take London. Or, on your precise point, New York City. And notice how New York is redirected to New York state, hardly where the majority of our users would want to go to. The problem with stubs, be they locations, asteroids, rivers, etc, ad infinitum, is that they can be created easily in order to boost edit count but that's about it. Sure, we want an article on everything, but we have not an infinite number of monkeys here Soup Dish (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For Kentucky, the 15 largest cities are Louisville (560.000), Lexington (280.000), Owensboro (55.000), Bowling Green (54.000), Covington (43.000), Richmond (32.000), Hopkinsville (31.000), Henderson (27.000), Frankfort (27.000), Florence (27.000), Jeffersontown (26.000), Nicholasville (25.000), Paducah (25.000), Elizabethtown (23.000), and Ashland (22.000). Total state population is about 4.1 million; The places listed have about 1.3 million people; this means there are roughly speaking 2.8 million for the remaining 400-odd places in Kentucky. These therefore have an average population of 7.000 each. --Eptalon (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) In the US, the top 20 population centers are New York City (18 mil), Los Angeles (12 mil), Chicago (9.5 mil), Dallas (6 mil), Philadelphia (5.8 mil), Houston (5.6 mil), Miami (5.4 mil), Washington, D.C. (5.3 mil), Atlanta (5.2 mil), Boston (4.5 mil), Detroit (4.5 mil), San Francisco (4.2), Phoenix (4.2), Inland Empire, California (Riverside, San Bernadino, Ontario) (4 mil), Seattle (3.3 mil), Minneapolis (3.2 mil), San Diego (2.9 mil) St. Louis (2.8 mil), Tampa (2.7 mil), and Baltimore (2.6 mil); pop. give is for urban area. --Eptalon (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What I think you are suggesting, in a roundabout way, is what I would agree with. That this project should start operating on a "top down" basis. There is no point in building an article on a town in the middle of nowhere with a population of 2 when the likes of London are, quite frankly, dire. Similarly, this goes further than just population centres. All subjects should go this way. How about creating an informal "importance scale"? Soup Dish (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we look at Kentucky again, I think it would be better to improve the articles on the top 15 cities listed, before looking at Coal Run Village (pop. 580) or Fredonia (pop. 420). Notwithstanding, I don't want to keep anyone who feels particularly attached to one of these to improve the respective article. Once these 15 are done, there are a number of districts (120 I think), each will have a capital itself, etc. I do not want to force anyone to do things they don't want to; write about the subjects you want, but do the more important items first - Also note I have no attachment whatsoever to Kentucky, other US states will be similar.--Eptalon (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

TransWiki

I suggest adding a template similar to the one below to article that have been transwikied. What do others think? --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 04:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This article has been transwikied from the English Wikipedia on ~~~~~ from [[:en:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].

Technically, we don't need to since the full page history is also transwikied (per GFDL). Furthermore, this template seems a little obtrusive. Perhaps something on the talk page or a smaller note? EhJJ^TALK 04:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{topicon}} verizon of the image? --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious that a topicon means that it has been transwikied. —MC8 (b · t) 15:51, Sunday April 26 2009 (UTC)

I think what is being missed is that it doesn't have to be obvious in the article itself, it just has be be recognized in the talk page or the edit history via a link to the old edit history. I am pretty sure I read that en.wiki actually has something stating that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article itself. -Djsasso (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mentioned in the article itself if for no other reasons than (a) the average reader doesn't care, and (b) we should keep maintenance templates/comments like this to an absolute minimum. EVula // talk // 15:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So we can leave a link in the article history, such as "Transwikied from en:Main Page"? --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Permalinking is to be encouraged. —MC8 (b · t) 20:51, Sunday April 26 2009 (UTC)

I notice you have a new sig MC8... looks good ;) Kennedy (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, transwikis and imports appear in the Import log. Typically, they include information about where it was imported from, and one can presume they are the current version at time of import. This data does appear in the history, but usually in a way that is not very understandable. EhJJ^TALK 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think A variation of this would be good when a person just copies a page from en.--  † CM₁₆  21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) You typed 5 tildes. Talk page colored box would be nice. --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

oops.--  † CM₁₆  22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Final Call

Hello gang,

Just making a final call for any more items to go in Simple News. The next issue is going out later today.

Regards,

Goblin 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What we still "need":

• Any willing volunteers to be interviewed by e-mail or IRC within the next hour or so.
• The person who created the wiki's 58,000th article to come forward and own up, as well as tell us what it was ;).
• Any other news, views or articles.

Regards, Goblin 09:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"In other languages" suggestion

In many articles, the "In other languages" list is longer than the article itself. This means that when you use "end" or "Page Dn" to scroll to the end of the article (to see templates/categories at the end of the article) you are sent far past that point (see Iowa for an example of this). Is there a way to hide those links that would extend past the end of the article? I think this would require a change to MediaWiki:Common.css or MediaWiki:Common.js but don't know enough to propose the actual code to use. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately neither do I. What I would suggest in that case is to simply lengthen the article.  GARDEN  19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Philosopher,

The links are very useful for some users, so there is no chance that they will be hidden across all sites. However, it is possible that you could add some code to your personal js/css. I will have a root.

Regards, Goblin 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern was that the templates/categories may be more useful to the average user. I'm not suggesting that the interwiki links be removed merely that they be hidden but still present on the article (with a "show" link to show the whole list if someone needed to view all of it). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that might involve editing the monobook.css for this wiki, something I know next to nothing about, I'm afraid.  GARDEN  19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates and categories not being seen because of too many interwiki links isn't an issue; they're displayed at the bottom of the article, not the page itself. EVula // talk // 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what Philosopher is saying is that you can't hit "page down" or "end" and automatically appear at the categories and templates. They can be about 2/3 of the way down the page (right at the end of the article), but the interwikis send the page down further. I, personally, see no reason to change this at all, but if someone wants to figure out users can do it as a personal style change, I don't see why that shouldn't be investigated. Either way (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a gadget would be the best way of accommodating this. EVula // talk // 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I would agree that a gadget is the best fix. It looks odd, but all interwiki links are accessible, so it is totally functional. I think if anything, it is especially important on Simple WP to have the whole list of interwikis there and visible, unless a particular user wants to hide them on their page. The next question is, does anybody know how to make the gadget? Wilhelm meis (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-) You should be able to get rid of the languages entirely by adding this to your monobook.css or modern.css (depending on your skin).

#p-lang: { display:none; }

As far as being able to hide them and then display them, that is a bit more difficult. EhJJ^TALK 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You could toss the above CSS into a gadget page to make a simple "turn off the section" gadget. Another alternative would be to tweak the style for the child section to have a set height, and force it to have a scroll bar (might look a bit odd, but it'd be significantly shorter). I could whip up the code if someone wanted it. EVula // talk // 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be useful if it's not too much trouble. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP...

One of our deletion reasons redirects to the EnWP policy about biographies of living people. Would it not be better to get our own (possibly guideline) about the subject? - EnWP stuff may be difficult to understand, so we should not refer people to EnWP policies; their audience is different from ours. --Eptalon (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a localized copy of WP:BLP but it is largely a copy from en and has not been simplified much. Eptalon, where is the link to en's WP:BLP? I searched WP:Deletion policy but didn't find it. It should point to our local copy if we have one (which we do... although it needs work). EhJJ^TALK 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The deletion reasons are at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown; page is fully protected, though. Can we nevertheless get an effort to get a version of BLP that is understandable by our _target group? --Eptalon (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SN delayed

Unfortunately Simple News will be delayed slightly as Bluegoblin7 is very busy revising at the moment. Thanks, Yottie ^=talk= 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New Guy

This is User:Piedude User_talk:Piedude here can some of you peoples be nice and talk to me Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease

What do you need?--  † CM₁₆  03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on IRC (irc.freenode.net) the channel is #wikipedia-simple and we'll talk to you. ;) “oddeyed„ (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this isn't Facebook. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said. All the best, “oddeyed„ (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

List of core topics

Hello all, any editors volunteering to help build the list of core topics? - This would work as follows:

1. Identify a number of articles that can be considered "core" in the respective subject area.
2. Identify a number of articles that can be considered "nice to have" in the subject area.

I would say, we start with a list of max. 50 articles (to be split in core, and nice to have, eg. 35,15, or 25,25). At least half the articles should be core. I do not want to do this discussion here. To build these lists we need 3-5 people per "subject area" - ideally people who have a good knowledge in the resp. subject area. I could also think that on this we could collaborate with EnWP to some extent.

For myself, I can help with anything Natural-sciences related, as a start. --Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I can do sports. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography for me I guess. Yottie ^=talk= 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Transport definitely and I suppose I can also do UK Geo and anything else that needs help. Regards, Goblin 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this differently:

• Applied Sciences (3-5 ppl needed): TRM, EhJJ
• People / Social Studies (3-5): Eptalon, TRM
• Daily Life / Art / Culture (3-5): Eptalon, TRM, BG, Yot
• Natural Sciences / Maths (3-5): Eptalon, Yot, EhJJ, Oddeyed
• Government / Law (3-5): EhJJ, Yot
• Religions / Beliefs (3-5): EhJJ, Yot

Drilldown is up to those involved...--Eptalon (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I can't see Geography... If the worst comes to the worst, I'll go with Daily Life / Art / Culture, and Government / Law. Yottie ^=talk= 11:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Geography is a natural science Soup Dish (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I think that . Yottie ^=talk= 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does transport fit in? Not meaning to be rude... but it is pretty significant (well, Transport, Train, Railway, Plane etc are!). Also, as much as I would like such a system to work, and in theory it should, in reality it almost certainly won't as you need to remember that everyone has their own "niche" area - and that area may not necessarily be important to some, yet that one editor may still be able to make a (V)GA out of it. Yes, having good quality "top-level" articles is important & wanted, but at the end of the day, I know i'd rather have lots of "unimportant" (V)GAs than few "important" ones - as i'm sure many would. Regards, Goblin 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Furthermore, what's important? In Britain, members of Parliament, the Royal Family etc are probably important, but in the States for example it would be people such as the US Presidency & Congress etc. People such as Isambard Kingdom Brunel are highly significant in engineering history, yet when chatting on IRC yesterday a few Americans had no idea who he was. I'm sure the same could go for someone like George Stephenson. See my point? Regards, Goblin 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest in fits into Daily life. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Goblin 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting one. Just because people aren't well-known doesn't mean they are not core. Examples would be William Harvey, Tim Berners-Lee, Robert Oppenheimer, en:Viv Anderson, etc, may not be well-known (and my examples aren't great!) but they would be core Soup Dish (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Soup, that's exactly what I'm saying, though with my example it was a "well-known" person. Things such as well-known and "core" are always going to be subjective. For example, I couldn't really care about articles about Science, Religion, Geography etc, and so to me none of that is core. I would call core things such as Tram, Train, Bus etc. and would happily fill an encyclopedia on those. Don't take this as negative btw, I think the idea is good but i'm just not 100% sure how it will work unless we actually completely (down to the article) define what "core" is. Regards, Goblin 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I spell out the obvious: What you find out as cats above are the 6 Knolwedge Groups we have on the main page. - Anyway, I think we will soon need to move this to some kind of wikiproject, as it has well gone past general discussion. Another issue would be: does it make sense to take (part of) the list they have on EnWP? - There they ate many more people, and have many more resources; also do you think that a few of the people involved in the project at EnWP would like to help here? --Eptalon (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think at the moment there's no point moving it away from this page because if we do it will probably only die. It's still aimed at most people as we would like to know what their "specialities" are.

As for the en list, I assume you mean the one on their Main Page? To be honest, we should keep it small at the moment as it will be easier to manage.

Finally, as for en users, we have tried and had differing success levels. There's no harm trying again, but do remember how some people see us!

Regards, Goblin 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I can help with history, biology (only some parts), maths and physics. (But I'm busy at the moment) Regards, Barras (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I second the 'I am busy but would like to help' group. (I signed what i'd like to do) All the best, “oddeyed„ (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in music, geography, transport and maybe literature. The life of brian (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of core

I'll try, and it will probably come out completely wrong: A concept/article is core in a given field of science if that field of science cannot be reasonably understood without that concept/article, or if the given concept helps understanding a great deal. -More to the point here though: The editors who volunteered should work out a list (of at most 50) articles they consider core.--Eptalon (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just do less defining and more article choosing? =D Yottie ^=talk= 15:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually think if people want this to happen we actually need more defining...because this will change alot of peoples editing to the point of whiping out some editors areas of interest completely. -Djsasso (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Eptalon, I intend to generate a list of 50 "core" sports articles (which will form a sub-cat of "Everyday life") - once this is done, what next? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Basing myself on WP:HAVE, I took Meta's version of it and distilled it down to the articles that were emboldened. This left me with a list of 200~250 articles that are important to have. Now, this list is far from perfect: there are articles that are on there that, in my opinion, are not required, and some that should be on there (Science, for example, wasn't on the list until I manually added it. Other than that, there have been as little alteration as I could make it). This is a wiki: I will add a link to the original list for comparison, but I expect it to be tweaked as much as possible. It's in my userspace for the time being, as I had no idea where to put it. What I think we should do is take this list, and make it even shorter, from 1000 articles down to 250, where this list is at the moment, to prehaps 100 articles we, as a community, should bring up to the highest standard possible. If we only edited those 100 articles, then moved on to the next 150, and then the next 700, we would be able to bring this encyclopedia back to a high standard of quality. What do you think? —MC8 (b · t) 18:54, Wednesday April 29 2009 (UTC)

That idea is actually quite great, but how should the first 100 be chosen? Should the be based on what all English learners should learn (sorry redundancy)? Or perhaps the very common topics known by most modern-day people? --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, MC8. For first articles? I'd limit it to modern for all topics except biographies, saving 5-10% of articles for topics such as Roman empire that are the most historically important. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps another idea of core: Daily page views (for today), Monthly top 1k, yearly those are the pages people look at, if we improve those first, we will likely see a result sooner. --Eptalon (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Eptalon: The first link is Simple, the next two are EN Soup Dish (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, now they all point ot the simple stats.--Eptalon (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone pointed out to me that WP:CORE might help in the definition of what a core subject is. —MC8 (b · t) 15:50, Thursday April 30 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know

Need I say more...?

Ok, I will anyway. You wanted T:DYK back. So it came back. Now, less than a week after, it has effectively died again, with just one nomination remaining. One update was made, but now all has gone quiet.

Now, i'm sure you'll agree that it's unproffesional to have something coming then going multiple times, so:

• a) Do we want it to survive?
• b) Are we going to maintain it?

If the answer is no to one or either, then let's just kill it now and not revive it. If it's yes... do something about it.

Goblin 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, we could relax some of the rules? For instance, the 800 character minimum, the no-to-VGAs, the (dodgy) readability (see the Bobby Robson PVGA) stats max 8-grader..... Also, perhaps instead of a list DYKs, maybe just or two per day? Refreshes here don't need to be anywhere need as vast or frequent as en.wiki. Plus, if the "core subjects" thing gets off the ground, we should soon have some decent articles to nominate... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, TRM. Maybe even bring it down to one a day, with a picture. Yottie ^=talk= 18:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the 800 character minimum shouldn't have existed in the first place.--  † CM₁₆  18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Going on TRM's ideas, perhaps 1-2 per day is fine. I should be remembered that seWP is not a large as enWP. --The New ℳikemoral^♪♪_♫ 00:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of VIP

Does the bot only archive requests at ViP after someone posts {{done}} under the request or doess the bot track the block log like at en? If the first, why don't we make it so it will know by the block log so no one has to go through saying done? Just a thought... Pixle1234 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a bot full stop. Where was consensus found for a bot anyway? It has only ever been archived in the past by hand every few days, so let's continue to do that. There's nothing wrong with it. And if there is a bot, go bring it up with the owner, it's not general chit-chat for every user. Goblin 19:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently the bot archives Simple Talk, the Admin Noticeboard, and some user talk pages. The reason a bot is used on those is that they are relatively high volume - If a bot does the archiving, it will be done regularly. Such things are not needed for pages like the VIP page, which has a relatively low amount of traffic. --Eptalon (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what "the bot" is. Besides, it's not capable of archiving the ViP page due to the nature of how it works... so I am assuming some other bot is meant. Goblin 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I find archiving VIP reports an extremely pointless and tedious exercise. I think it'll be a lot easier simply to remove them. But I know I'm outnumbered here. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I stop arguing here about such things. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Pixle may be referring to User:Chris G Bot 3 which appears to have archived it on April 24th. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeterSymonds on this point, what is the point in them?

@Philosopher: do you know where a conversation about it was? I might talk with Chris G... Goblin 19:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The bot request page. Chris G Bot is set to archive every 7 days. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I second/third/whatever the idea that we stop archiving ViP. It's in the history, but other than that, it's not especially worthwhile information to archive. EVula // talk // 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The archives were sent to RFD at some point... Majorly talk 21:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Shall we take them there again...? I've been bold :). Goblin 08:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be worthwhile. Do it. :) EVula // talk // 10:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Already up there. :) —MC8 (b · t) 10:32, Sunday May 3 2009 (UTC)

reset The RfD was closed as a delete today, so bye bye archives. Just a thought, how long should we leave them before they are deleted? (The reports, that is). I'd suggest a day or so after they have been looked at by an admin. Thoughts? Goblin 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I blew 'em away. As for how long reports should stay, yes, no more than a couple of days. We just need to be sure our instructions for reporting are nice and clear in case the VIP is empty and people have no other reports to base theirs on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not quite as outnumbered as I thought... ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Guideline for community bans?

Hello all, I think it would be good to have a guideline on community bans- In my opinion this guideline could help us, in the following ways:

• Standardise vocabulary: we all know what we are talking about, and can point to it, in case there are disagreements.
• Standardise procedure. We will all know what to do next.
• Standardise rules for voting. Who can vote, what percentages are needed,etc.

Does anyone else think this would be a good thing to have? --Eptalon (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can standardize any of those things as bans are very much based on the situation at hand and need to be adaptable. I especially don't think the last one can be standardized. -Djsasso (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Drama break - Cuban Missile Crisis

So, in amongst the "goings-on", could I refocus people to articles? This particular article is currently denoted as a very good one but I found it to be sorely lacking. I have proposed it for demotion (over a week ago) - do we want to lose another VGA? It's up to you guys and girls to help out. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done some changes to the article, and added a few sections (mainly based on the EnWP article). Please note that there is still work left to be done, namely:

• Simplifying what has been added
• Fixing red links introduced (such as Monroe Doctrine, was amazed we do not have an article on it yet).
• Addressing the other issues mentioned on the talk page.

As the article is now, it could probably be made a good article; the question is really: do we want to lose a VGa for what might be 1 hour work for 2-3 people? --Eptalon (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article still isn't even GA right now. I have a big problem with the WP:OR in "Kennedy's Options" (which should be "options" by the way). Totally uncited, looks like someone's ideas rather than encyclopedic fact. And the lead is way way too long... don't forget the lead shouldn't contain anything that isn't expanded upon in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just noticed we don't have a Wikipedia:No original research policy here! Another thing to add to the list... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I copied over the page, and simplified the intro. At the moment I commented out the policy, our policies ought to be easy to understand, even with a limited knowledge of English. As to the article, (Cuban Missile Crisis), do you suggest to demote to regular, as apparently few people are interested in fixing the problems/problems are too big to be handled now, or could we live with it as a GA for now? --Eptalon (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well applying the no original research guidelines, I think we still need to get rid of, or at least rework, the "Options" section, otherwise it's a regular article as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality offensive?

Hello all,

I think we should not let ourselves distract by the drama we have seen in recent days. I therefore propose we all make an effort to make this wikipedia better:

• We are currently very few editors - more editors are always welcome.
• At the moment, we are between five and ten people working on the GA/VGA process - new editors welcome too.
• There are currently four proposals for good and two for very good articles. Many of the articles proposed need a lot of work till they can be voted on - any help is appreciated.
• There is currently one article listed for demotion from VGA - do we really want to lose a VGA?
• Many people think that did you know? is a good way to tell other people about the articles we have - In order for it to survive, we need people who add hooks for the next update, though
• We currently have Barras running for adminship and Djsasso wanting to become a bureaucrat - I invite all named users to express their opinion; more people voting will make the result more meaningful.

So, please look at the list above, if you do not know what you want to do... :) - Thanks --Eptalon (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Forking Simple, a query

A quick question. If I wanted to copy everything on Simple Wikipedia and install it on my own server, where I could then place adverts, etc, how would I go about exporting everything (mainspace, userspace, templates, etc, the whole lot)? Soup Dish (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a location where you can download the most recent database backup. I think its on toolserver, but there might be a link to it on meta. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the location. download page -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Special:Export. Then, on the other end, Special:Import. You'll need a big webserver. If you want to put advertisements, then mw:Manual:Gallery of user styles have several Google advertisement skins that fit into Monobook, reasonably seamlessly. —MC8 (b · t) 18:44, Sunday May 3 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, I'll take a look. More of a case of seeing what's possible than actually doing, I guess! Soup Dish (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, what are you going to be using the website for? Although I have no say in what happens to my contributions (as per the GFDL), I'm curious. —MC8 (b · t) 19:09, Sunday May 3 2009 (UTC)

In theory it would be for the creation of a Basic English Wikipedia Soup Dish (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that not what Simple is? It's pretty much based on the basic English wordlist, in theory. —MC8 (b · t) 14:59, Monday May 4 2009 (UTC)

I am not soup...but my guess is that its the "pretty much" that is the problem. Alot of comments on the closure of simple discussion were based around the fact that we don't stick to basic english like we should. -Djsasso (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't be addressing the problem by having a non-Foundation project fork, though. The time and effort spent installing MediaWiki and importing the the database backup and then reducing down to basic English would be better spent working on this project. EVula // talk // 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was just guessing at his motivation, not agreeing with it. -Djsasso (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(<-) These are just a few observations, you may disagree with them:

• It is extremely difficult to write articles/texts based on word lists, even more so if they limit you to 1000-1500 words (and their inflections) or less, esp. for scientific topics.
• Taking the current database as a base for a new project can be done. Please note however, that there are over 50.000 articles that need reviewing and rewriting to this word list. Given our current activity levels here, I'd guess you need fifty or more people to do this in a reasonable (months) amount of time. Also note that SEWP probably does not have that number of contributors.
• Forking out of disagreement with the current editors or policies will not solve problems. You will need to attract a high number of motivated editors (which this project has mostly failed to do so far). If the only differences to SEWP is using a wordlist-based approach, and perhaps focusing on a different audience, I predict that your project will be doomed, because you will not be able to attract enough momentum to get the project going. or to keep it running.

These are observations of what might happen - they can turn out wrong. --Eptalon (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

More articles proposed for demotion

Two more up, this time both good articles:

• Mouthpiece (brass) essentially fails as it has virtually zero valid references, amongst other issues.
• France, reasonably newly promoted, but a hatful of issues, all listed out on the talkpage.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I must do some work on France. Will get to it ASAP, sir! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Praise for SE WP!

In light of all the issues around here in the past few months, people leaving, people feeling discouraged, feeling like we don't have enough focus, enough of a defined purpose, no clear feeling of what "Simple English" really means and how to write with it, people trying to close down the Simple English projects...I would like to share an article I came across that renews my belief that we're a worthwhile site and our work has meaning. http://johnaugust.com/archives/2009/simple-english Enjoy! · Tygrrr... 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice! Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK Solution

Hello everyone. I know many people have raised their concerns about DYK, saying that it keeps dying, failing, and comming back for a week or so. I propose that we:

• Allow VGAs to be good for DYK hooks.
• Allow articles with less than 800 characters to be DYK hooks.
• Have 3 hooks/week. (easier to maintain)
• Make it easier for hooks to be approved by reducing the number of people saying it's good to 2 (the nominator + 1).
• Leave the accepted hooks up for 24 hours.

Thoughts are welcome. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a simplification project

My recent time away gave me time to plan this ahead, and today I bring my plans before the Simple English Wikipedia community. There is a category on here that lists pages that may be too complex for readers of Simple English Wikipedia's intended audience. At present, the category contains over 1,200 pages; and there are probably many more complex pages that have not been tagged as such. While I plan on tackling this massive backlog, I'm going to need all the help I can get, and so I thought to myself, "wouldn't it be great if there was a collaborative group of Wikipedians whose goal was to make the Simple English Wikipedia easier for our intended readers to understand?" My goal is to found User:Dylan620/WikiProject Simple Wiki – a collaborative group of Wikipedians who work to clear out the massive backlog of complex pages here on the Simple English Wikipedia. I refuse to go ahead with this without the proper consensus to do so; as such, I hereby bring my plans forward to the community for review. --Dylan620 ^{Review me} 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. Tagging and ruthless deletion of unsimplified transwikied pages will help, something we can all do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

me points to User:Project/Collaboration. Let's not re-invent the wheel ;) Goblin 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well ok, use project collaboration, but this time really do it. I'm happy to simplify some articles too. You need to organize it well though, so that we :

• Either we each simplify any articles (from a list, starting from a certain letter each).
• Or we sort the complex articles into categories (history, geography, biology...) and we each do a category.

Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• @ Goblin: This project wouldn't be re-inventing the wheel (at least I don't think so); User:Project/Collaboration deals with improving and expanding articles, while my project would focus on simplifying them.
• @ Yot: We would all go to articles that are in Category:Pages with complex sections, and simplify them. I'm not so sure about assigning each member a letter, though; that could potentially restrain them from topics they enjoy. --Dylan620 ^{Review me} 22:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, get it started on your page, and I'll start tomorow. Going to bed, good night, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a "Simple Page of the Week"? program? Pick a long, complex article each week, and everyone is welcome to come and go to improve it. Granted, that would net us a whopping 52 simplified articles a year, but if people aren't obligated to do it, there'd be less burnout. EVula // talk // 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Simple Pages of the Week? Like page to fix per category. Example:

• Geography - Fix United States of America
• Biology - Fix Dog
• Art - Fix Paint
• Pop culture - Fix Emo

and son on? --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 23:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Back from vacation

Hiya everyone. I'm back from my vacation. It was awesome, I went to Japan (via NYC). Japan was very cool, NYC was strange since I hadn't been since 9/11 and that event was very much on my mind whilst I was there; the city looked very odd without the twin towers. Hope all are okay, I can see we've had some (more) drama lately [sigh]. fr33kman ^talk 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. =) --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you back. EhJJ^TALK 01:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When don't we? Good to see you back. I've never been to NYC, though I am sure I will now that I am alot closer drive. -Djsasso (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Drama on a wiki? That's unheard of! ;) EVula // talk // 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

.js problem

Someone who's familiar with JavaScript - I'm having trouble with my javascript at User:Philosopher/monobook.js - the usertabs and the purge button parts. I copied the purge javascript from the purge button's gadget page and am using usertabs originally published at en:user:Where/usertabs.

They seem to be working or not as a unit. They won't work on any namespace's talk page. Also, where they do work, they do so on an apparently random basis - they don't work on my own page, at User:Pixle1234 or at User:Soup Dish - but they do work at User:The Rambling Man and User:Eptalon.

Any suggestions? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What browser and OS are you using? (preliminary information that can be helpful before attempting to actually answer the question) EVula // talk // 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Vista Home Premium - Service Pack 1 and Firefox 3.0.10. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried it out, running Firefox 3.0.10.0 on Windows XP SP3 using the Modern skin and compatibility and it worked fine on all pages. I can't see any reason why it would work on The Rambling Man but not Soup Dish. Perhaps try it out again but make sure you refresh your browser with Ctrl+F5. Also, considering opening Tools > Error Console and see if you get any Errors. (Note: there are always some Warnings b/c MediaWiki is a little broken ;)) Good luck! EhJJ^TALK 16:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

how do i copy an article from simple wikipedia to wikipedia?

is it possible to copy an article from simple wikipedia to wikipedia? can someone please explain how to do this in a simple way? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abovo123 (talk • contribs)

Copying articles isn't very difficult, but if you only want to have one article copied (such as Joshua Abelow), then it may be easiest if one of us does it for you. Instructions on how to copy from the English Wikipedia to Simple English are available here: Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia). You'd have to do the same thing but in reverse. EhJJ^TALK 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked me [2] to move simple:Joshua Abelow to en:Joshua Abelow. Unfortunately, I cannot create the article on the English Wikipedia because it has been blocked from creation.[3] Only an administrator on the English Wikipedia will be able to make that article. You (or someone for you) will need to make a request at en:Wikipedia:Deletion review explaining that Joshua Abelow meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for creative people. Sorry, EhJJ^TALK 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just ask RHaworth, as he's the one that protected the article. If you ask him to look at the Simple English article to see if it's got a shot at being notable enough, he might just unprotect the page and you can do it yourself. EVula // talk // 05:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)