Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Simple talk
Icona de la Tertúlia de la Taverna de la Viquipèdia.png
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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.
Are you in the right place?

Contents

[change] Proxybot

Hiya gang! Recently, on IRC, a suggestion came up about dealing with open proxies on all Simple English WMF projects at the same time. The creation of a adminbot (proxyblocker) that'd block proxies for all sites at the same time. This came up because on simpleWQ today an open proxy vandal (the same one as here of late) begun an attack there. This proxy had already been blocked here on simpleWP for some time. As such, it might be useful to get some discussion going about the need for such a tool, what it would look like, what it would do and what it would not do. Suggestions so far have ranged from a non-admin bot that dumps a list of proxies to block into AN on the projects (or another page) to a bot with the sysop flag that finds the proxies and deals with them. It was also wondered about if this should be a new bot (EhJJ expressed interest in writing it) or an existing bot (IE: en:User:Slakr's bot) Thoughts? fr33kman talk 00:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly a number of options. At the moment, I have a bot (EhJXWVBot) which checks whether an editor (or IP) changing pages on one of the Simple projects is currently blocked on en. If so, it sends a message to ##cvn-simplewikis on freenode. It would be very simple to get the bot to actually take some action. Here is an example post:
82.94.180.240, who recently edited User:J.delanoy (-1207) on simple.wikiquote, 
is currently blocked on the English Wikipedia from 2009-09-13T22:07:55Z until 
2010-08-30T08:14:50Z for: {{blocked proxy}}:  
Diff: http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?diff=32284&oldid=24350 
Block: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/82.94.180.240
There are a few bots out there that actually detect whether an editor is using an open proxy. None are 100% accurate, but they are usually quite good and would really help diminish attacks by those who are currently circumventing admin blocks. Right now, vandals have the upper hand, because there are so many open proxies out there and blocking them one-by-one manually is a losing battle. EhJJTALK 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe it was talked about before to use slackr's bot once he replied to us about it. But I don't remember when where or how it was talked about. That is my personal preference. -DJSasso (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two things that would be nice and would support both:

  • 1. Slakr's bot which I believe goes through and blocks all known proxies at that time. (has to be run when we want it done)
  • 2. A bot, likely written by EhJJ or someone else. That would read blocks done on any Simple project and then EITHER (if its an admin bot) block them on all Simple projects OR (if it's not an adminbot) edit a list of proxies with a block link on all simple projects where that proxy is not already blocked.

I think they would be separate proposals and to be honest I think we should do 1. regardless of whether we do 2 or not. Jamesofur (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I like idea number 2 Jamesofur. This way, it could help other administrators control who gets blocked as they might not have already edited on any of the other projects, in which case blocking on the other projects would be a complete waste of time. Razorflame 04:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(<--)Okay then. There seems to be a general agreement in principle. Why don't we ask EhJJ to write something and we can give it a test run? fr33kman talk 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, a bot to do which of the following?
  1. Open-proxy-detect: Do what en:User:ProcseeBot does: find open proxies from a published list and block them. I think this option would use a lot of resources, as there are many more open proxies than are ever abused. It makes more sense to check IPs that edit to see if they exist on an open proxy list, or
  2. Cross-block: i.e. if an ip is blocked on any wiki as an open proxy, block on all other wikis.
I'll work on option #2 since it might be useful to have not only for open proxies but for any abusive IP or registered user. EhJJTALK 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wondering where we are on this thing? I know that there has been some concern about what the bot would do and what usergroup it'd be a part of. I think that there is good reason to allow a bot to run as admin. Speed of blocks, consistency of blocks, easier to keep track of blocked proxies due to logs being easier to find. I think that all projects should take part in a trial period of dry-run actions. This would include the bot making a record of the actions it would have taken for incidents that really happen. This can then be checked by the right people and verified to be the case. At that point we can then decide on the future of the bot. Thanks! fr33kman talk 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[change] Proposal to close Simple English WQ (3)

Because there are a lot of users who work on multiple Simple English projects I thought it would be a good idea to draw people's attention to the discussion posted by Anonymous_Dissident on Meta proposing that Simple English Wikiquote be closed. - Jamesofur (talk)

[change] Proposal re Administrators and Crats

I propose that we begin to follow the same system like the one that meta has successfully executed in that:

  • only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after 6 months 12 months 9 months of regular adminship
  • User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves here

The actual meta text reads, which I propose here:

  1. Are active on Simple with over 150 edits/log actions (after getting adminship and not including own userspace) in the last six months.
  2. User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves at WP:RfA.
  3. No objections are raised in 24 hours after he/she nominates themselves at WP:Requests for adminship. If objections are raised, a short discussion should ensue, at which point after 48 hours, preferably, an uninvolved bureaucrat will close it and analyse whether consensus believes the concerns are valid or not. If the concerns are considered valid by consensus, he/she must nominate themselves via a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat.


Where the two positions are bundled together. Administrators already judge consensus on discussions, this will telescope into RFx discussions as well. Additionally, administrators who are interested in helping in bot and/or renaming areas, can do so. After some discussion, I intend we put it to a straw poll vote/!vote as well. Thank you for yout consideration. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, considering that it's worked well over at Meta for several years. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Per above. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Works for me. Barras (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This should have happened a LONG time ago. Majorly talk 16:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Works for me too. Agree with Majorly. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Me too, no issues with the idea. fr33kman talk 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea, but worry about the relatively short cut-offs. I'm not one to drag out processes unnecessarily, but allowing only 24 hours for issues to be raised is not enough time. Perhaps allow two days? I'd rather delay someone getting the bit by a day than have to go through a "de-"something later. EhJJTALK 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully to address your concerns... the requirements for two crat certification, will hopefully stop any "de-somethings" later, while still allowing the community some (albeit abbreviated) time to express concerns. The intent here is to assume admins already know how to judge consensus, and are trusted while permitting an abbreviated process. I think we all want to discourage trophy hunting and demystify the "power" behind our various positions. This is a positive stop for this wiki. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I supported this last time someone suggested it. I would rather however, that someone need to be an admin for a year rather than 6 months. So we can see a commitment to staying around. I think 6 months is a relatively short time. This will help to avoid people trying to race to crat and then disappearing right away. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have an issue with that. I've taken liberty to extend the above proposal to your suggestion. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I think a year is better, indeed. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter... but why not stick to the meta policy? Most of our crats have got the extra bit in less than a year... Pmlineditor ∞ 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
6 months does seem a bit short, I think. If not, 9 months maybe? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
6 months is imo enough, as mentioned above that's the current time with the admin rights before running for other tools (I guess, not sure). Just make a rule that people you have extra rights and don't edit get their rights revoked. Barras (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason I think ours should be longer is simply that meta is a different type of community with stewards and such active on it frequently so issues that might occur can be caught and fixed quicker. I don't see a reason to be less than a year, while I won't argue it tooth and nail. I do think at the minimum they should have to be on the wiki for a year perhaps instead of admin for a year. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the "uninvolved crat" bit. I think people are able to act without a conflict of interest even in a matter they have participated in. To enforce it being an uninvolved person says that for each event someone is not permitted to vote. I think anyone should be able to take part in anything, so I'd prefer that to change personally. fr33kman talk 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's the agreement? Majorly talk 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As it looks we are in agreement that we use this new rules mentioned above. No opposes are risen, no concerns. So we just need to change the CFA page. There we go, a new system. Barras (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
To me it looks as follows:
  • There seems to be trouble to agree on the length of time someone has been an admin before they can be nominated for crat (Currently seen 6 months, 9 months, 12 months). I think with that goes the level of activity - 150 admin actions in 12 months is different from 150 admin actions in 6 months.
  • There generally seem to be issues with the timing; This Wikipedia has less activity than most. If someone has been an admin for six months or more, it should not matter whether they wait a day, or a week before they can become a bureaucrat. Longer time periods are probably better, as some of us do have a life outside WP, and do not get a chance to check daily.
  • There seems to be a problem with the "uninvolved" crat- Taken literally, it means the crat who closes cannot voice their opinion, to be a clear support or oppose of the candidate in question. A crat should however be able to judge community consensus; this may involve having one opinion, and closing differently, as the "consensus" is different.
As a general note, may users advocate a change, so it might be worth looking into it further. - I hope this more or less sums up the positions. --Eptalon (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
If the time is increased (such as from 6 months to 12 months), the number of log actions to count as "active" should be increased as well. Chenzw  Talk  01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
6 months admin, 150 actions, 1 year active works for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer that we use a smaller time criterion (i.e. 6 months minimum) but require a larger activity criterion (such as 200 admin actions). In my opinion, being more active should get you "promoted" faster than just being here a long time. Additionally, notice that it says "in the past 6 months". So, if someone is an admin here for two years, they need at least 150 actions in the past six months. Also, keep in mind that these are minimum requirements. I've taken the liberty of striking "edits" in the requirements above, because we clearly want crats who do more than just edit here, they need to be active admins. EhJJTALK 11:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Normal editors?

Hello there, I did a little count:

  • 18 admins listed as active
  • 5 bureaucrats (7 total, 2 inactive)
  • 5 oversighters
  • 3 checkusers

And there are between five and ten regular, unprivileged contributors (not counting rollback as a privilege). Would it not be time to change something? - Grinning sheepishly --Eptalon (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Per our criteria, bureaucrats, checkusers and oversighters need to be admin, so there are 18 admins (some with more privs), compared to about 10 named users.--Eptalon (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem here. It's better if more editors are admins. In an ideal world, every editor would be trusted to maintain the wiki. Majorly talk 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
We need in generell more user and it doesn't matter if with or without extra tools. I don't see the point of this counting. Barras (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Majorly. While achieving adminship shouldn't be people's goal, it's definitely helpful if the majority of editors can take care of spam quickly and efficiently. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Remember, remember, the fifth of November...

I don't know, this is perhaps a short notice, but on Nov. 5, 1605 the Gunpowder Plot took place; influential catholics wanted to kill King James I of England, and most of the (Protestant) aristocracy. Guy Fawkes was the man in charge, even though Robert Catesby did the planning.

Anyway, if we want ot do anything meaningful, the articles need to be written and brought up to a certain standard. This is of course just an idea...--Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should work on that. --Bsadowski1 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think a priority would be to get five articles to DYK standard and get them all on DYK from the 5th to the 10th. If we can get a VGA too then brilliant, but I can't help feeling with four days to go it would be a rush job, and even if it was decent no guarantees it would be promoted. Perhaps keep the idea on the backburner till next year, and do it for Christmas, New Year or something instead? Goblin 23:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
Penny for the Guy? Well, I think that Guy Fawkes would be more doable in the very limited time available. I'd suggest given the amount of editing we need to do we work on a copy in userspace rather than the live article. Let's take sections (sign up on the talk page for what you want to work on). Because of the limited time we should try to avoid needing to creat too many redlinks, but not at the expense of the reader. Remember to only use the section edit buttons to work on your section. :) Good luck! fr33kman talk 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Leave me a note on my talk page, and I'll get to it tomorrow. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, my friends, how are you all doing? I have a doubt: I was checking the article Guy Fawkes on Wikipedia in English and the first part of the article is just the same. Is it alright to leave like that on our Project? Hugs, Isaac Mansur Post 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Today's events - BG7

Not all of the community follows WP:AN closely, so with that in mind, I bring attention to this event. The details of the block are final, but BG7 has issued a statement that may be of interest to many. Regards, fr33kman talk 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] This whole city thing

There has been much talk in this community about the prevelance of articles on cities and towns that are one-two sentences plus, if you're lucky, an infobox. With regard to the U.S. and Canada, I think that we should pick ~1,000 American cities and ~100 Canadian cities, and those articles need to be created and then expanded, or at least not deleted. Sort of a prototype SimWikiProject Cities' top and high priorities. I have created the beginnings of such a list, which can be found at User:Purplebackpack89/Vital Cities in the United States and Canada. Feel free to comment on that list. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy for any article to be created, as long as it meets criteria. Majorly talk 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Any article can be created if it meets notability criteria, we cannot change this rule. However I think as a community we really should try to get everyone actively involved in expanding stubs and making better articles rather than writing hundreds of one or two sentence stubs on similar topics. Far from me to dictate, if people want to do that, they can; but I feel it's not the best use of time and/or effort. FSM Noodly? 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This is actually what PB is getting at. We have a bunch of one line stubs and others wanted to delete them because they were one line. PB wants us to work on making the cities on this list be more than one line. -DJSasso (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, expand them and not delete them. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Not that I know much about American cities, but I'd be willing to help. FSM Noodly? 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
(<-) The idea behind deleting them is/was twofold:
  1. At the time of this writing, they are one or two line stubs (... is a city in (pick US or Canadian State). In this form they aren't helpful (and could probably be speedy deleted).
  2. Some of these are hard to verify, let alone hard to expand beyond pure statistical data (There are 750 people in 80 families...). If this is the case, and they cannot be expanded beyond that, they should still be deleted
For my part, I think a first step of a solution would be to pick a few and expand them. Like eg. 3 citites per US state, or top 50 cities in the US,...--Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Gale.

Hey guys. I was just browsing when I came across the Gale article. Looks like one of the templates used in the article is outdated or something and it isn't reading it properly. I think it is in the conversions from knots to km/h. I fixed most of it, but there is still the one "Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSon" redlink there. I am not sure what is causing that. If somebody could take a look at that and try to make something of it, that would be great. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done We imported the Convert template from en; apparently its still broken in parts. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there are hundreds of subtemplates for convert. And we are missing many of them. Anytime you see one of the redlinks let an admin know and we can import it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys, but the template redlink is still there, and because of it the article doesn't make sense to the reader...--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I've redirected {{Convert/LoffAonSon}} to {{Convert/LoffAonSoff}}, this should take care of it. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That did the trick. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. Got another one. Geography of Romania has a similar problem with the convert templates. I am completely unfamiliar with it and don't want to make it any worse.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Griffin--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Norm Karkos, notability question.

http://www.wmtw.com/station/4030562/detail.html This is information on Norm Karkos news anchor for WMTW news in Portland, Maine. If someone could write this up as notabily enough that would be great or I could write a bio-stub on him but i need to know if he is notabil enough? Thanks SaskMan826 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone think this is okay to add? or not notable enough? Thanks. SaskMan826 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Where can I ask a question

If you are a admin please put you name here so can goto your talk page and ask you a question. my talk page is http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FrancisLightHouse-Owner

Hi FrancisLightHouse-Owner, You can see all of our admins at the bottom of the page WP:Administrators but I'll be happy to help you as well :) Jamesofur (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have some question and I prefeur if I say them on my talk page. Is that ok?

[change] Vandalism at an all time high....

I know admins are trying to revert the vandalism as quickly as they can but it seems like its just non stop. there must be a easier way. SaskMan826 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have a few bots to help us. Also, if you'd like I can enable rollback rights on your account so you can help out. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism isn't actually all that bad here compared to english wikipedia. Most vandalism is gone pretty quickly. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
We have to face the fact the more pages we create, the more popular we become, the more vandals will come and vandalize. I don't actually think it's as bad as sometimes in the past. Yotcmdr =talk= 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It would help if driveby IP editors had to sign up. That would at least made a hurdle in the effort to vandalise. Majorly talk 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed fr33kman talk 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would make them an affort to vandalise here, but on the other hand, they create a mass of accounts with bad usernames. This doesn't make the work less. Perhabs we should like enwiki disallow the page creating for IPs. But we shouldn't disallow all IP edits. It's still a free encyclopaedia where all are invited to help, even IPs. Barras (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ditto Barras. Forcing people to create accounts wouldn't significantly reduce vandalism, potential vandals will simply take five seconds to create an account and vandalise anyway. Tempodivalse 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the bigger problem will be the names of the accounts. Just disallow page creation for IPs. --Barras (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Important proposal

The following is something I wrote on the latest proposal to close a Simple English project.

An idea I came up with recently, to prevent these perennial proposals regarding the Simple English projects, was to merge the four projects (Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikibooks and Wiktionary) together into a large Simple English Compendium of Knowledge. I have been unhappy for a long time with the state of Wikipedia (it's the only SE project I'm active on): I think that, unlike other Wikipedias, it should concentrate on core curriculum topics that non-native speakers/children are likely to want to read about. Instead, we have mass creations of stubs of things ranging from places and asteroids, to football players and rivers. When these are deleted, or nominated for, there are always complaints that the topics are "notable". Those complainers are probably right. However, why would someone go to Simple English Wikipedia to view a one sentence stub on, say, a hamlet in Indonesia, when the English Wikipedia has an identical article, or possibly a more detailed one? It makes no sense to me. Now if I had my way, I would ban all stub creation, and articles should only exist if they meet, say, criteria for Did You Know (which isn't particularly hard). As noble as some people may think they are being when they create one-line articles, it actually is damaging to our project and reputation. When you look up a topic, you'd expect to see something substantial, not just something you'd be able to guess like that X is a place. In short, stubs do not help Simple English Wikipedia at all. Now regarding Wikiquote. I think quote projects are completely redundant and problematic (e.g. the Rush Limbaurgh fiasco, fair-use etc). However, notable quotes can easily be merged into encyclopedia articles. A lot of people seem to forget that SE Wikipedia is not English WP and so does not have to follow its exact rules with article guidelines and layout. A final point: I doubt such a proposal would work, for one reason being that it is probably out of the scope of Wikimedia - but I'm not too sure on that. People are resistant to change, even if it's for the better. There are many positives that can come with merging: more manpower, and a larger community so more opinions and assistance for things like vandalism; a larger scope, while narrowing parts such as what encyclopedia articles warrant inclusion in a Simple English encyclopedia; ability to add new parts, such as news, source, wikiversity etc without having to propose it here. There are probably more. But I really think this is the way to go, to stop these proposals coming up time and time again.

In short, I think we should merge the Simple English projects into one and redefine its scope. Majorly talk 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. You said redefine its scope ; did we ever come to an agreement over what it was? Yotcmdr =talk= 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No. It is claimed that it is for EAL speakers of English. However, no EAL person would look up fellatio in Simple English, or random river stubs that have identical content to English Wikipedia. My suggestion all along is it should be aimed at children based on curriculum topics. Majorly talk 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah perfect I was just writing something about this. I talked to Pathoschild on IRC and if we want to merge them all into Wikipedia we can do so with just local agreement (this has already been done with one language). It would be much harder to create a new project because we would have to go through the new wiki creation process which would be difficult since as a language we grandfathered in under the new rules (that would not allow a simple project). Personally I like a combination of what was talked about on IRC today. Wiktionary and Wikipedia are the two biggest and most important projects (in my mind) for any kind of simple project and Wiktionary should probably be imported into it's own namespace. Like Maximillion said on IRC the quotes would probably be better served on the article pages themselves, along with simplified explanations (the original quote should still always be there). I'm not totally sure Wikibooks should come at all to be honest.. though maybe in its own namespace if we wanted to keep them?Jamesofur (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I love it. BTW My personal stance on the one line stubs, is to take a little wander over to my good pal google. Search the topic up. If it has countless hits of information on why the subject is so great or noteworthy, then keep it. If, when I do a search all I can find out is that is exists, that I don't think it belongs on simple.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Why should everyone else make the effort? The article creator should bother to make the topic a substantial one before they post. No respectable encyclopedia sums up subjects in a single sentence. I say add a QD criteria "anything less than a paragraph". Majorly talk 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
And that I disagree with. I don't think we should be deleting things because they aren't up to our standards for a good article. Try to fix it. To me, deleting is like amputating. It should be a last resort, and for articles that are not noteworthy in the least. Take The Three Stooges. It was deleted today, and I re-created it. A very short article. Doesn't even skim the surface of the topic. I don't think we should delete it, because it is an important topic in our society. That show provided entertainment for a generation! I fully agree with the merger suggested above, but do not agree at all with the need to delete. In no way am I saying these stubs are acceptable articles, but we are an ever growing and changing project. I think we need to stop deleting, and try to fix what we have.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No respectable encyclopedia sums up subjects in a single sentence. I think we should be deleting things that damage the credibility of Wikipedia, and that don't inform readers. The article you mention tells us exactly what about the topic? That it was a TV show. Anyone wanting information will go to English Wikipedia, not here, because that article is poor. It tells us nothing, and articles that tell us nothing have no place in an encyclopedia. Imagine if you wanted information on the topic, would you seriously come here to get it, if that's all the article had about it? Who says it provided entertainment? The article does not. Why not? We aren't doing the job properly if our article lack context and information. I think we should stop creating and fix what we have, and fixing involves removing the chaff. Majorly talk 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said, the article hardly skims the surface of the topic. What is important however is that there is a topic to write about. Deleting an article doesn't improve that article. It demolished it, and I think that is more damaging to the pedia. If an article is a one line stub, and has no room to grow, then by all means get rid of it. It doesn't belong here, and isn't in the scope of this project (imho), but articles about an important topic need to stay. No matter how bad they are. I say this because they can be improved. Unlike Mr.One Line Stub over there, an article about an important topic has room to grow, and has potential to become a great article. If we start going through and deleting every article that isn't longer than a paragraph, than this wiki would be empty, and people would stop coming here not because the articles are poor, but because there are no articles to read.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't get created in the first place, so it wouldn't be "demolished". If an article can be written in more than a paragraph, then it should be written in more than a paragraph, and it shouldn't be left up to everyone else to fix it up because it's "important" or "notable". Your final point is nonsense - we have many proper articles here. It's a shame we have so many bad "articles" that show them up. Majorly talk 23:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
As I am coming here regularly to contribute with something, I would like to say some words about what Majorly said above. I discovered SE Wikipedia some days ago and started my contributions. I read almost all the policy and messages, talk pages and so on to learn about this increadible Project. As a foreigner, and a language lover (no matter what language it is), it would be horrible to let it die or leave it in the hands of those who want to destroy it and I don't even know why those vandals do it. After this preamble, I shall say that I feel all way comfortable here and I can work well among my other fellows; I mean, I found here lots of respect among users and that is somehting good for the health of the Project.
I decided, at first, to take a look at the orphan pages and also the uncategorized ones. It is a huge problem to solve, all those categories to be created (and I don't even know if all of them should be created or not). After that, reading all the messages about stubs and the way articles are brought to SE Wikipedia, I think it is time for a greater job and rearrange things before they grow as a snowball and fall over all of us. Inumerous one-line-sentence articles? What for? I agree that articles should really be revised and made bigger so students could come and feel comfortable with all the information in them. The more we grow, the more we have problems; so, what about cleaning up the house before the Armageddon? I am here to help! :)
Another point is the English used. Sometimes the article is all imported from English WP and, if this is it, I better move and contribute there (what I really don't want to). There must be a great effort to make them readible by everyone in everyplace, that knows a little English. If the proposal is being "simple", so let's make it really "simple" (of course, baby talk is not allowed :)).
So, those are my opinions about the case. Without mention the vandalism that occur in a non-stop way and I try hard to combat it. I have my fingers crossed and I am rooting for our Project to win this battle. Here, I found a place to learn more and more, to practice my English that I took some years to learn and also I can spread a little about knowledge. Regarding the merging thing (SE Wikipedia, Wikibooks...) I still don't have a clue if this is good or bad, but I am with all of you wherever you all go. If I said something wrong or my words sounded not alright, I apologize, but my intentions are good. Count on me. -- Isaac Mansur Post 23:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry if I am not making sense to you guys, but when I first started editing with Wikipedia at the beginning of this year, I proposed an article be deleted because it was in a terrible state. Because I did that, I had editors screaming at me, and they were going to send a report in on me (or at least open up an RFC) but they decided not to because I was new. If I learned one lesson from that, it was that we don't delete because an article looks bad. We are a wiki. Fix it. I have come to live by this, and it is one of the reasons I take deletions so seriously. I agree that we have many many many great articles here, but the shear number of terrible always seem to hide them, and many of these bad articles are the one line stubs about towns in the middle of nowhere that I agree should be deleted. I just don't agree that articles on important topics should be deleted because they are not up to par. Doing so has got me in trouble in the past, so I can't agree on it in the future. My views on this matter are hardly important, and I really would like to hear what others have to say.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem merging if that is where we are headed. But I do have a problem with deleting stubs on notable topics. Unless we are doing a full reboot of wikipedia and deleting everything except the VGA/GA etc. Otherwise its a complete POV situation. One line stubs as Gordonrox mentions that have room to grow are better as one line stubs than as no article at all. That is my take on it, and is unlikely to change because that is a core principle behind wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - one line stubs are just as bad as no article at all, because they simply don't inform. Majorly talk 15:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
They are better than no article, because they give a starting point for someone to expand on. Stubs are where many people start editing wikipedia. I know I started cause I was expanding a stub that didn't have much information. I would not have started a new article however. And from what I have heard talking to others there are many others would also said similar. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would not mind the Simple English Wikibooks and Wikiquote being merged into a compendium of knowledge, but the Simple English Wiktionary is doing just fine without the need to be centralized with a single Simple English project. Furthermore, what are you going to do about the current administrators and bureaucrats of all the other Simple English projects? Are you just going to drop them all saying that the Simple English Wikipedia administrators are sufficient enough? Several other editors and me have been working hard on the Simple English Wiktionary, and I don't see any need for it to be merged into a single Simple English project. Razorflame 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Wiktionary could work very well as part of a centralised project. I understand your concern about admins; my idea was to just merge the functionaries as well, as the manpower needed would obviously be greater. Majorly talk 15:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would probably want the newcomers to run through RFAs. But for most that should probably be a breeze. By the looks of those discussions right now WB and WQ are likely to be gone soon anyways. So those people would lose them anyways. Simple wiktionary is another matter, since its not currently up its in a different situation. Personally I would like to see it merged into en.wiktionary and not a combined simple. For the sheer fact that dictionaries are supposed to be simple english, sort of the point of them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The idea of merger makes a lot of sense, including merging wikt, imo. fr33kman talk 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with this. But I've one question: will WMF allow it? Pmlineditor ∞ 15:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
@Pmlinediter: Yes, they will allow it, you see, one language has done this before, so there is precedent, and since there will not be a new wiki created, langcom will not be involved at all. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Dj, we will all be newcomers. It'll be a brand new project. Majorly talk 16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (e/c) I saw a link to this discussion at SEWT, and thought I'd give my thoughts. I support merging the SEWB and SEWQ communities into a single wiki with the encyclopedia, that seems logical and will save the content in both projects from being lost (as they're both likely going to be closed). However, I think the simple english wiktionary is better off as a separate wiki (although I wouldn't oppose a merger). One comment though, shouldn't this discussion be advertised on SEWB and SEWQ, to get the input of the community there? Tempodivalse 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    WQ and WB notified. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
SEWB and SEWQ as one wiki sounds pretty weird. They don't have any real relationship other than the "language". They should be merged at least with the encyclopedia. No one has suggested how SEWiktionary is better off a single project separate from the rest. Why would it be? Majorly talk 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant that SEWB and SEWQ should be merged with SEWP, I didn't mean we should merge those two into a separate wiki altogether. I clarified that point now. Tempodivalse 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Before I would even think about supporting a merger, I would want to see a) A !vote, b) support from every active member on all four projects, and c) Support from the WMF. Furthermore, there are many concerns that I have on this. Firstly, how would you denote the different projects here? Would they have their own namespaces? Secondly, I have liked the drama-free Simple English Wiktionary as of late, so I would really appreciate it if it were kept as its' own separate wiki. Thirdly, if we merged all four projects, there were be major duplications of many articles, which leads me to believe that there would be compatability issues which would be far greater than any we've ever faced. Instead of doing something like this, why not just focus on making them all better first? Razorflame 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll vote on it once we have discussed what we want. I don't think asking for support from everyone is reasonable - if there is consensus (i.e. most people) then we should go through with it. A minority of people not liking it shouldn't hold us back. The projects would have their own name space: Wikipedia:, Wikibooks: etc. The project space would be called whatever the project ends up being named. I think leaving out one project is silly if the only reason to is the "drama" aspect. Merging will help the project not hinder it. If we merged there would be no duplications as every project would have its own namespace. There is no way we can make them better, particularly Wikiquote which is heading for closure as we speak. Merging will save them from that fate. Majorly talk 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Leaving out the Simple English Wiktionary is a good choice because it is the project that has the most practicality, and it is the project that is the most well off. I believe the Simple English Wiktionary should definitely stay as its' own project because it just would be too much of a hassle to move all four of the projects into one. Why not just leave it out as a project that can and will survive further proposals for closure, so I don't see why we should merge it yet. If it seems like it is about to close from a proposal for closure, then I will support merging it into a single Simple Project. Razorflame 16:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
But it would work just as well as part of the larger project. It would also have more people available to work on it and maintain it. It wouldn't be a hassle at all, it's been done before. I don't think this is a question of gaming the closure system, it's a question of making a decent project that people are going to use. Majorly talk 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I would support the idea of merging all simple projects. Well, before we do this, we need to clarify what happens with the admins of other projects that aren't admins here (as mentioned above). I'd personally like to them having an RfA here. I wouldn't simply transfer there right to this wiki, because this wiki has a bigger community. I talked yesterday evening to Fr33kman about this. I came after sleeping about it to one concern. We will grow. At some point in the future we will have have 500,000 and more articles on this wiki. And this as a mix between quotes, articles, entries (Wiktionary ones) and perhabs books. This can become a problem, because this will make the work on this wiki more and more difficult. I guess the chances to get the then bigger parts like wiktionary or quote to own hosts won't be easy. In the future, this wiki will become very complecated and hard to understand how it works. I know that such a merge was already done, namely with the als Wikis. But they can request back an own host for books/quotes... when this parts are worthwile enough for an own wiki. We would have problems to do this. How will this wiki work in 10/15/20 years with a mix between all projects?

I'm not sure if this idea is that much better, but: Quotes can be added to the articles when needed. We usually don't use that many quotes, because they are most likely complex. Do we really needs quotes? The same goes for books. I doN#t know if this wiki is worthwile enough to merge it with WP. The Wiktionary is atm with over 12,000 entries a relatively large project. There is enough content to merge it with WP. But in the future, it will grow to perhabs 20,000 or even 50,000 entries and more. A mix between WP and WT articles would be hard esp. because we can later most likely not undo the merge. Perhabs it would be the easiest to just close SEWQ and SEWB. To the Wiktionary, I would suggest that all admins from WP get admin there too. This would help in the case that vandalism appears (or grant the right at least to whom they want to have it and watch the wiki via the IRC channel).

But again, I still think a merge isn't a bad idea, but several thinks I mentioned now should be cleared first. A good idea would imo be an agreement that if WB, WQ and so on are grown that they can get their old domain back and can be again independent. We need to look in the future. I'm not sure if we can handle a really big mix-project. This is possible at this time, but is it still possible in 5 years?

I hope the comment is understandable and not too bad written. Regards --Barras (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments above. There is no reason why the admins on the other projects shouldn't be admins on the large project. Why should Wikipedia get priority and keep all the admins? We are merging into a new project, not merging to Wikipedia. We will need all the manpower we can get, so making everyone not an admin on Wikipedia go through a pointless RfA is... pointless.
Above I described how we can use different namespaces to differenciate the parts of the project. It will be simple to understand.
If we find we can merge quote pages into the encyclopedia article, the quote page can be deleted. But some would probably be worth keeping.
Again we're not going to be a random mix of things. Each project will be in a separate namespace - it will just be hosted under one wiki. Majorly talk 16:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't saw the comment above my long statement. I think this was an unshown editconflict. Barras (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to just be one project with seperate namespaces then I see no point in doing it because that is what we are now basically. The only difference is that instead of namespaces its seperate urls. What I do support is those other projects merging into Wikipedia and merging what we can into singular articles. Thus my comment about having them run RFA here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Other projects are not an encyclopedia though, so that is unlikely to work, with the possible exception of quotes. Majorly talk 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikibooks should just disappear completely, quotes can be put on articles. And dictionary definitions while not strictly encyclopedic, I think would fit in perfectly fine into an encyclopedia. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
A few of my musings on this:
  • I think that there should be different namespaces for the different projects, it would make things more organised (and I think it would be difficult/clumsy to mash everything together into one page). My idea for how to arrange things is something like this (not sure if it's feasible technically though): each page would be split into namespaces, listed as Encyclopedia:, Quotes:, Dictionary:, and Book: (or something like this). The main article (in main namespace) would serve as a disambiguation page with links to the pages in the different namespaces. To ease searching, there could be a menu in the search bar to determine what namespace to search things in (i.e. if i wanted to search for an encyclopedia article about something, I would choose "Encyclopedia" from the search bar, if i wanted to see quotes about someone I'd choose "Quotes", etc.).
  • I'm of the opinion that admins on the other simple projects should get the admin bit on the merged wiki by default as well. There's no reason why SEWP members should get priority over the rest of the simple english community.
--Tempodivalse 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the only reason I say it is becaues its excedingly easy to get it on the other projects. Having the trust of 5 active editors is alot different than having the trust of 30+ editors. That being said, I also said it was mostly a formality as I am sure everyone would pass anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that just because the folks at Simple Wikipedia have an identity crisis and a lot of silly articles, other projects like Simple Wiktionary need to be pulled in to the mess. I think the purpose of a simple wiktionary is clear and have no desire for it to be mixed in with a simple wikimash.--Brett (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple language projects have been an overall failure; combining them into one would make simple projects even more useless. This merger proposal is a hastily-created alternative to closing the simple books and wikiquote projects. In the pervious closing proposals, the wikimeta community was tolerant to the inactivity and decided to live and let live the struggling simple projects. Unfortunately there has been little progress and many other projects, especially the English wikipedia have shunned the simple projects. On the most recent closing proposals, the majority support closing simple wikibooks and wikiquote by a rough 2-to-1 margin. Many projects in other languages have been closed for similiar reasons why some users want to close simple. However there was always a group of resistance, claiming to keep it for non-native speakers or for the children. Just how often do 5th graders come to the simple wikipedia to research for a school project, or an ESL student use simple wikitionary to know what the word "population" means? It is time to step back and realize that keeping the simple projects won't bring a sudden burst of activity here. Users come and go and wiki projects evolve over time. I think that the consensus should also change and adapt to the current circumstances here. Even if the current proposals fail again, in the next year another complaint will arise up and the discussion will repeat itself again as it has done before. The majority of the opinion will progressively push for closure of simple language projects. 71.107.248.207 (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge there are no statistics on "user base" (what kind of user uses what kind of project). It is therefore idle to claim that these projects should be closed, based on the fact that no fifth-graders use Smile Wiktionary, Wikibooks or Wikiquote. Can you please point me to some kind of statistics that show that any pupils (school, not university-level) use Wiktionary, Wikibook or Wikiquote, for the "regular English" (non-simpilfied versions)? - If you make claims, please back them up with hard facts. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Beaver Crossing...

As you might know, Beaver Crossing (at EnWP) is a city in Nebraska. Since it had like 470 people in 2000, it would likely be a one-sentence stub, or similar to the EnWP article, that only lists statistics.

Since there are editors working on fixing the problem, I think we should simply give a deadline. One-sentence-stubs are deletable by current deletion policy. I therefore propose that starting next year, anyone who comes across such an article should delete it, if they have the right tools. Even if we delete one or two too much, such articles are easy to re-create with hopefully better content. And before I forget, Iqaluit is the capital of Nunavut. About 7.500 people live there. --Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

And did you know that Iqaluit is the most northerly and fastest growing capital in Canada? Making the stubs bigger ---Peterdownunder (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
My feelings on this are I personally think no stubs should be deleted on site unless they are not notable if its a one sentence stub let someone add on more thats what wikis are all about i thought... lol. anyway just my 2 cents worth. SaskMan826 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How about anyone that comes across one, fixes it? Sounds like a better idea to me. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
How about those who create these stubs put a tiny bit of effort in and make them actually articles, rather than a single useless sentence? Majorly talk 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"Useless" is a strong word, Majorly. I don't think one sentence should be considered as being "useless" but you have your opinion. SaskMan826 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to stubs that already exist. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Also the stubs are already there. Fix them, don't delete them. And we can't expect each new user to create a full fledged article. There will be some stubs. We have already put a stop to experienced users using bots to create one line stubs. So the creation of them by experienced users is not really an issue anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that it's not hard to write a paragraph on a topic. And I am not proposing we go and delete everything already here (though if I had my way, I would), just not add to the chaff. Majorly talk 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] How to align text

How do you align objects and text in Wikipedia? Thanks. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

<div style="float:right">
I'm floating right. Go me.
</div>

<center>
I'm like, aligned centre. Woo.
</centre>

I'm already left aligned. Yay!

—MC8 (b · t) 11:29, Saturday November 7 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Microchip08. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just gonna say "float:right;" will make it go right but it will also make other text build around it, use this:
<div style="text-align: right;">
I'm aligned right.
</div>
Just trying to help.--  † CR90  01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[change] Inactive admins proposed guideline/policy

Perhaps, in light of the two new requests for de-sysop of inactive admins it's a good time to finish looking at WP:Inactive administrators? Thanks! fr33kman talk 01:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that it should be 6 months over a year but something is better then nothing ;) Symbol support vote.svg Support Jamesofur (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that there's (AFAICT) unanimous consensus, I've taken the liberty of implementing that as policy. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk"
In other languages