Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple talk
	Shortcut: WP:ST This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. If Wikipedia is not working or is very slow, you might find news about this at "Wikipedia's Status". You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.	Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Are you in the right place? See WP:CHU to change your user name or take another user name. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight requests. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages — Purge    edit

Contents 1 Emphatizing my (somehow) 1000th birthday 2 Editor Review. 3 Point Enabled Pages 4 Simpler editing for Simple English 5 Project Scope 6 Special:WantedPages 7 Numbers...

[change] Emphatizing my (somehow) 1000th birthday

I'll be reaching very soon the 1000th mark on Main. Never before I've been trying to celebrate on Simple pump where very few French people such as me contribute. That's why I ask you to give me an idea about my 1000th edit. Something I could be proud of and useful for Simple as well. Michel Alençon aka ONaNcle (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

An edit to France ;) ! Je ne suis pas français, mais j'habite en France, cela revient presque au même! Yottie ^=talk= 11:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not announcing it here? We really don't care about your edit counts and would much rather the time spent to write the above was spent on an article. Ta Goblin 11:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

@Yotcmdr: Tks for your kind words; @ Bluegoblin7: When emphatizing about an unwelcomed 1000th edit, I didn't think about those outside Main appearing too in the Recent New Changes. ONaNcle (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it to my talk, though I fail to see how they are the same thing. Goblin 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

[change] Editor Review.

Hey guys. There are two editor reviews open that have been up for almost a month now. Maybe somebody would like to head over there and give a quick response. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor reviews are quite exhaustive ones and often aimed getting nominated to an admin vote; I just need a partial advice: in my previous RfA I had only 28 deleted edits and most of people voting against my promotion said it was not enough; today the number is 178; is it enough? Tks. ONaNcle (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers don't always matter. But I can tell you right now it is unlikely you would pass an Rfa. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it isn't always about edit count, it is the quality of the edits you have made, and the trust the community has in each editor. Editor review isn't always about passing at RFA though, it can be a place editors can go to receive feedback on the work they have done.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You've only been active for 4 days since taking a lengthy break. I think an RfA would almost certainly fail at this time. EhJJ^TALK 04:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Let just hope Simple will never have a drastic and urgent need for sysops... don't worry about me : I contribute far more in the very places where I can access the full tools I do need. ONaNcle (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted an opinion to each editor review, but it would be nice to have a second opinion before they are "closed". If anyone has a minute to either agree/disagree with my reviews and perhaps offer some additional insight, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the two users. EhJJ^TALK 04:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[change] Point Enabled Pages

Hello,

I'm not entirely sure if this the right or most appropriate place to be contributing, as I have never contributed to Wikipedia before, can someone assist me please?

I am here for the following reason:

I work for Widgit Software www.widgit.com and for the last 25 years we have been providing support for people with literacy impairments.

We’ve always believed that no matter what your level of reading, you should have fair and equal access to text-based materials. As such, we have developed a large database of symbols, which currently stands in excess of ten thousand images spanning a forty thousand-word vocabulary. The Widgit Symbols are the only symbol set specifically designed for readers with Special Educational Needs, they are also the main symbol set used within UK schools to promote mainstream inclusion and more recently they are being heavily used with readers who have English as an additional language.

Our software is available in 14 languages and is used worldwide to create symbol-supported materials for use in print, onscreen and online. We also offer a range of services to help organisations make their information more accessible.

In addition to the continued development of innovative software, we have now have turned our attention to accessibility on the internet and created Point and Insite, both allowing unparalleled support for symbol readers online.

We would like to work with wikipedia, to get our new product, Point, enabled on the website, as it is a site that is full of useful information that would be of benefit and interest to people with literacy impairments, an audience that would struggle to access the information without traditional human support.

Point works when a user hovers their mouse over a word they are struggling with. When they hover over the word, an appropriate symbol pops up. This symbols is a pictorial representation of the word, showing the user the concept and meaning of the word. It enables impaired readers to confidently and independently access texts, without the need to be continuously assisted.

If you would like to see point in action it is enabled on our new online technology site, which is www.widgit-online.com or you can read further information about Point specifically by visiting http://www.widgit-online.com/products/point.htm

We also have a page of selected current clients that are using Point, it can be found here, http://www.widgit-online.com/clients/examples.htm As you will see we have a range of clients that vary from schools, services and tourist attractions.

We are willing to offer wikipedia the use of the service for free.

Please would you get back to me with any questions or thoughts you have about using Point, or if you would like to discuss the technical implications of using it on your site.

Many thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from somebody soon.

Russ russell@widgit.com

Wikimedia is open source only so your software is not really an option.Geni (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[change] Simpler editing for Simple English

Lwyx has updated his simple English spellchecker for Firefox. By using this Firefox add on, editors can easily see which words are in simple English and which are not. While in the editing window words not in the Simple English dictionary are treated as spelling errors and are underlined. This makes it very easy to see where words need to be made simpler, or where a link maybe needed. I think it is one of the best editing tools you can get. Download it from here. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A spell checker in general would be a good idea. Majorly talk 12:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that a spell checker is a good idea. However, words like "spell", "dictionary", "editing" or "easily" are underlined. I think these words are simple. --Barras (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a help. But it tends to overlook slightly more complex words like 'rhythm' and 'official' but underlines words like 'movie' and 'guitar.' Still, any tool that makes an editor double check their work regardless of whether it is spot-on accurate is a good thing. while typing this post the spellchecker underlined the word 'tool' Theodolyte (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it override Firefox's built in spell-checker, or is it in addition to it? For instance, nothing in this editing window is underlined right now; including the words that Barras has listed. @Kate 16:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You can only have one dictionary at a time so you have to turn off your other one and turn that one on. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[change] Project Scope

If we want to really get this wiki going the right way we need to define the project scope, sooner rather than later, before it's too late. Once we know what it is, everything becomes easier. Suggestions are welcome. Yottie ^=talk= 21:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In our scope should be articles that would people help to learn the language. Suggestions:

• WP:BLP
• Important parts of the history (Nazi Germany, Napoleonic wars, WWI and II etc.)
• Biogrphies of important personalities like Beethoven, Van Gogh, Mendel, Darwin, etc. Important people of art, music, history, politics and so on.
• Recent events around the world (e.g. the current meeting in Kopenhagen)
• In generell articles about science, physics, maths, biology, and so on.
• Countries and countrysides (Mt. Everest, USA, Canada, GB, Germany, France, Atlantic ocean...)

I would say that out of this scope (at least until we have the above things "done") are:

• Mass creation of (unimportant) footballers.
• Rivers, Asteriods
• Towns and small (unimportant) cities about somewhere in the nothing.

Just a few thoughts. --Barras (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I tend to agree. Yottie ^=talk= 21:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that Barras has it right here. Kate (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And I think we should have the same kinds of articles en has. Our scope as far as what articles are concerned is the same across every language wiki. The only real scope question should be children or esl learners. -DJSasso (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think when determining scope as you call it, there are several things to keep in mind:

• We do currently not know who is reading SEWP. We say the main readership (our target audience) are people learning English as an additional language, and children. We might be wrong in that assessment.
• No matter what decision we take at the end (even if we do not take any); some of the people who do not like how we decided, will leave the project, ie. stop editing here.
• Our main problem at the moment is "getting" new editors.

We can of course take a decision to go in this direction or that one, but such a decision should more be about focus. Let's focus to get all capitals for all Indian states, for example (Bhopal is a nice once-sentence article at the time of this writing).Keep in mind that people will always write about what interests them. --Eptalon (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we must find a solution to get more new editors. Thanks, Yottie ^=talk= 06:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a good solution to get more editors to edit here is to allow them to make articles that are verifiable and reliable, like those on the English Wikipedia, and let them make them. That way, they get to do what they love, and the Wikipedia gets to grow. Razorflame 01:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to what you say is "out of the scope of the project", I think such things are always going to happen. This is how it was when En:Wikipedia started out, people made articles about things that interested them and/or were easy to scrape from public sources. There's very little that can be done about this; remember that En:Wikipedia only really got most of their "core" articles fleshed out in the last year or two. (by the way, how's my Simple English?) Riffraffselbow (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[change] Special:WantedPages

Can we get this list updated at least weekly? Thanks. Davidwr (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Devs don't like it. Sorry, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What's not to like? If they don't like it being generated at run-time a weekly generation by a bot would do nicely, something along the lines of en:WP:WANTED but updated more regularly? Also, simple:WP:MISSING would be good, it should probably consist of articles that are on the burn-to-CD list, or at the very least, the 1000 "most vital" topics in :en. Davidwr (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We actually already have pretty much all of the WP:VITAL articles. -DJSasso (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I copied the en:Core_topics_-_1,000 to User:Davidwr/Core topics - 1,000, this gives us a few important redlinks to get rid of. I count about 25-30 redlinks that need fixing and a few flag templates that need creating. Some of these may just require redirects. Similar copies can be made from en:WP:VITAL and related pages. Davidwr (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We actually already have what we consider to be the vital topics at WP:VITAL as I pointed to above. We are simple.wiki and not en.wiki, so our list of topics considered core will be very different. -DJSasso (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the flags. What you have to do to fix those is actually go to commons and create a redirect from what our template considers the title to the actual flag image as we don't host images on this wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

[change] Numbers...

Hello all,

I want to perhaps leave some to think. Recently, the election of Bureaucrat criteria was changed so that candidates who get the support of two current crats are automatically promoted. While having many bureaucrats is not a problem of itself, I still want to point out that getting rid of an (inactive) bureaucrat is much harder than for an admin. What this community needs, in my opinion, is simply more users who edit (without the need to have extra buttons). We currently have about 20 active admins, and as many inactive ones, for a total of between 30 and 40 active users.

Can I therefore propose we limit the number of crats to 10 (25%) total? --Eptalon (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with that on two conditions: 1) it counts only active crats and 2) it applies only to promotions that bypass community consensus. If we have 10 crats and a superior candidate wants to run via a community process, he should be allowed to do so.

If too many active crats are a problem - and that is a wonderful problem to have - then asking crats to give up the bit for awhile and let someone else have a turn might be in order. Many real-world organizations require people to not serve more than X years in a row for certain positions.

I wasn't around when the crat-promoting-crats discussion came around, it would've taken some convincing for me to support that proposal. For what it's worth, I'm on the record on :en as supporting term limits before reconfirmation for all advanced bit-holders, but on that wiki that proposal never gets any traction, and there are good arguments against it. Davidwr (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really any harder. We just hold a deRFB like we used to do with admins. At which point we ask a steward to remove it. No harder than what we did in the past for admins before removal of them became automatic. We could probably also change the admin removal process to include crats if it doesn't already. That being said I have always supported limiting the numbers of both admin and crats to a percentage of editing population. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you lose the admin bit, the crat bit has to go with it. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's "the more the merrier" as that means there are more trusted people and more people to take care of deletions. Having almost every active user a Admin or 'Crat is not a bad thing. So no I oppose any limits.--  † CR₉₀  19:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically you can be one without the other grif. Though yes we most likely would remove both. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't really care about a limit. However, I think that all higher rights ('crat, cu, os) should be removed after three or four months of inactivity (less then ten edits/actions). We currently have one nearly inactive oversighter and two or three nearly inactive 'crats. I think we should first do a "clean up" and look if we need to fill the positions up. An other good thing could be the re-election of all those groups after 2 years. This means we limit the number of the positions and all 2 years has every user the chance to apply for the position. (The current people can keep the right if they are re-elected). This could help to get the inactive people removed from their position. Also the numbers would be limited and a kind of review all 2 years (Community says s/he did a good/bad work). All people have the chance to get re-elected and new user's have the chance to get the higher positions (not for admin elections). The system works fine on dewiki. Just a few thoughts. Best --Barras (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy (or guideline, although it's probably a policy) says that one must be an admin to be a crat (or be a CU or OS). @Barras, we have an inactivity policy that should take care of that. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that we have a policy. I just think that the higher positions should be handled an other way (less time of inactivity until the right is removed and/or re-election, so that the user will lose the tool after two years. --Barras (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is not 1 year good enough? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with one year in the higher positions is that some users (I guess all know to who I refer) do all three months two edts and count then as active. This is having tools for no reason. --Barras (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(<-) What about the following (would apply to Crats, CU, OS):

• No inactivity for longer than three months (inactivity: not using the resp. tools; as opposed to not editing)
• Re-confirmed/re-elected once a year
• For the time being: Crats limited to 10 active.

Things that should not change:

• Admin election rules
• Only admins can apply for higher positions

Suggestions? --Eptalon (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the first one, because the user may not always have the opportunity to use the tools, as the demand for use is not very large. Thinking about others. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The first one should be changed to edit, not actions. There is probably not always use of the tools. Furthermore, I think re-elections should be all two years. One year could become annyoing. --Barras (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I necessarily agree with the reconfirming every year. Especially since the identifying to the WMF is a pretty big deal and I know some people wouldn't want to do it if they were just going to lose their tools in a year. I see no real reason to reconfirm unless an abuse has happened. -DJSasso (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Personally I see this as a rewrite of the policy that we just wrote, thats fine if people want to do that but thats what it is. As I told Eptalon on IRC when he said it looked like he was the only one who thought this way: If he sees a problem then its fairly likely someone else does to and didn't say anything, perhaps we didn't have enough discussion for the last policy change or it wasn't clear enough. To the discussion: Personally I tend to lean on to side of get rid of people who are inactive (3 months seems like a fine time frame to me for basically ANY tool set but I know people disagree with me on admins and thats fine). For crat it may be fair to say they don't have to use their crat tools very often but we could always use admin logged actions, for OS and CU I think it should be OS and CU actions, if your not using them do we really need you to have them? We are a smallish community but not THAT small or inactive.

On the whole idea of the number of crats/admins/normal users I don't personally see it as a "big deal" if anyone wants to see my normal thoughts on them feel free to look at my essay on the matter. I think the idea behind the last discussion was that if you were trustworthy enough to have crat then there really wasn't a big downside to have more people with the tools especially with a time period you had to wait to get it. I don't see it as very difficult to remove since a steward will usually do a NORMAL request almost instantly let alone an emergency request and if you abuse the tool your done, period. I also tend to think of admin/tool access numbers as separate from editor numbers and in general they don't limit the other but I realize thats coming from someone who as an editor is less active then most so... James (T|C) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I think we have too many admins, I do not see the big rush to remove tools from people. What does having the tools hurt if they aren't using them. Personally I think its mostly a case of human nature, people want to knock others down. I know most people won't admit to that but I think that is what it boils down to. -DJSasso (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "too many bureaucrats" arguement is a major issue. It's not like the community is over-populated. More 'crats means higher effeciency and more active 'crats is a good thing.-- Tdxiang 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Why should we elect our users for a life time? In most (probably all) western countries, the population elects their "leader" for a limited time. After their period, the people have the chance to get re-elected (Which says: Has s/he done a good work in his position or not?) People wouldn't elect others who are clearly not active. Would you like to have people in positions (like being a president) who isn't even active with his/her responsibility? Why should we keep a crat/cu/os who exists only on paper? Sure it doesn't hurt if they have the tools, but does it help? No! An other point to consider is, that the user base of the wiki changes from time to time. People leave and new one come. Why shouldn't the new ones, those who joined later, not have the chance to say their opinion about User:xyz as crat/cu/os is good or not? On the German WIkipedia are currently around 20 adminships/reconfirmations of the inactive ones or the ones who got their tools with under 30 to 1 or two supports. The users who do a good job will keep the rights, the ones who doesn't do a good job will lose it. If you are inactive, you don't need the tool anymore, so you will lose the tool, if you are active you will keep it because the this will surely be the case in re-elections. I think many people don't want to say User:xyz: please go through a re-election because you are not active enough or something. That would look bad. This system is not only to get rid of the inactive users, it shows also if you are trusted. If we probably (and hopefully) have in two years more regulars (50/60 editors): Am I still trusted also by the new members? Only people who cling to their tools won't go through a re-election. What happends if I lose my tools? Nothing. I know that having extra tools doesn't mean having extra power, but people might think so. Please feel free to fix my typos/bad grammar! Thanks. It's only my opinion. --Barras (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the key point to make is that these aren't elections. We aren't politicians, we are just being shown a higher level of trust based on our past contributions. Whether you use the tools or not you still have the trust. Having to reconfirm every year is just a wide open door to drama, something this wiki should be trying really hard to avoid at this point in its life. Sometimes there isn't the ability to use the tools, I haven't for example seen anything that I could OS in weeks. Doesn't mean I am inactive, just means either there hasn't been anything or I haven't been on at the right time to catch it. (same goes for being a crat, now that every one can be one once they hit the requirements. There might be enough actions to go around that each crat has the ability to make one action every third month or so) Should I lose my tools because of that? Of course not. ps. Senators in my country actually are appointed for life....or well until mandatory retirement at age 75. Oh and you asked if it helps only having them as a crat or whatever on paper, and the answer is Yes, becaues if they are on and something needs to be done in an instant they are there and can do it. One edit is all it takes to be a benefit to the wiki. Heck even the potential to make that edit if the need arises is a benefit. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that there isn't always use of crat/cu/os tool. Active in my point of view means that the user who has the right should edit here and/or use his admin tools here. I wouldn't say we should revoke rights as long as the user is active. Furthermore, I'm not talking about yearly elections. I'd like two years (probably three). Reconfirmations will just show us who has changed and should/ shouldn't have the tools. We in Germany appoint our parliament for a four year term (as well as the ministers). No one in Germany is appointed for life time. I think reconfirmations are a good thing. --Barras (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)