Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. 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 Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. 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 —    change

Need template experts

I would like to know if anyone here can help create this template from enWP? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What template? That link goes to an article. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that template on the article I need for Amphibian which I'm working on right now. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the automatic taxobox one? I could bring that over for you. It's not hard, though -- just create a page here and copy the code over, then do the same for the doc page.
On second thought, the talk page for that template says only to use it where there isn't already a taxobox. I believe we do have a taxobox template. Is there a reason you can't use that one?

We do? Can you link it for me? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Taxobox}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox expert here! I can work on importing it if you like. It's powered by an insanely hugely complex network of templates, so it would take several days' free time at best to get at least the most critical ones all imported. Also, I'm quite busy with several things at the moment, but I can add that to my list of things to do. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you like :D I've been using that taxobox (even though its for species and not for kingdoms) but I made it work lolz. It would still be appreciated if you can and I'll use it for the Amphibian article I'm working on. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If you give me the list, Bob, I can use Special:Import to import them all. Only takes a few minutes, and it means the attribution is there already. Osiris (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the {{automatic taxobox}} template should work flawlessly at Amphibian, though most other taxa will require the entry of each individual parent taxon. Once this system has been used across several hundred pages, it will require considerably less work to add an automatic taxobox to an article, hypothetically to the point where the only taxa needing entered are those the article is being written about. I'd recommend having a bot set up to import the Template:Taxonomy subpages from the English Wikipedia, where several thousand taxa already exist in the database, allowing the automatic taxobox to prove its worth.

In case folks are wondering what exactly this template it, I've imported the documentation as well (it's not been translated to simple English-- sorry!). The template is a specialized taxobox that automatically calculates the entire scientific classification of an organism, and also prunes the list down so it only shows the taxa that are relevant. When you add an automatic taxobox to an article, you'll usually be prompted to add that taxon to the taxonomy template database. Once you've done that, you'll do the same for the parent taxon, grandparent, and so on, until you reach a taxon already in the system. If taxonomies are revised, this is reflected on all taxoboxes, not just one. (This saves hours, sometimes days, of correction work!)

Anyway, I hope to spend some time working out any glitches the code has as a result of having been developed for a different wiki. Please leave any questions regarding the system at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure the automatic taxobox and the manual one both maintain similar output styles and will be linking them to use the same formatting code, as has been done recently at the English Wikipedia. I've adapted the same code to match the Norwegian taxobox style (which is radically different from any I've seen), so this should be doable. I assume the current taxobox style is the one that works best on this wiki and that the new automatic taxobox should reflect the same style? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point we might need to start evaluating whether we really need this system. It's coming up to about 250 templates now and it looks like there are plenty more where those came from. Taxobox works fine without this system, so is there enough of an advantage to warrant this new system considering the lack of infrastructure and editor support to maintain its hundreds (potentially thousands) of templates? The documentation page seems to indicate that one of the main purposes of this system is that it updates hundreds of thousands of taxobox transclusions automatically... But simple has under 3000 transclusions - which is (at a glance) well less than a third of the amount of subtemplates taxonomy would carry (not even considering all the other templates). Do we need this? I'm certainly glad to see the enthusiasm, but I'm somewhat unsure whether we have enough articles to warrant it, or enough editors to maintain it... Osiris (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't "needed" at all...the manual one produces the same material. On en:, the manual taxobox is far easier to use when it's being used on a manageable number of pages, but the automatic one is far easier when the taxobox is used on thousands of articles. Given the numbers, I think it's safe to say the Simple English Wikipedia likely will not see the benefit from this template at a very early stage. That's not to say "don't use it", but that it would be more effort for editors to use this template until it becomes widely used (as in several thousand transclusions). But, I'll leave this to the community to decide.

So folks are more informed, an automatic taxobox would require you to enter a template corresponding to the taxon the article is about, as well as all parent taxa that don't already have a template. After several thousand templates are made, the number of templates needing made each time a taxobox is set up decreases (as low as 1 or 2), but starting out you might be creating between 10 and 60 templates each time depending on the level of detail you want to go into.

At any rate, I'll halt my work on the system until a consensus is reached. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused here, sorry. Are we talking about the glitches of the taxobox? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 03:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The glitches are caused by the absence of templates that need importing. According to Bob, every time you use automatic taxobox, you'll need to import more templates. We are talking about whether it would be practical/worthwhile to have this system, or simply continue using the ordinary taxobox template. Osiris (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that this is the kind of automation I used to come up with in my programming days, and it's really cool. Second, I have to say I'm glad I probably wouldn't be helping maintain it (I don't have the expertise). After looking it over, I'm in favor of keeping things simple here, and just using the taxobox we have. Let me repeat that the automated one is really cool! I'm just concerned that adding the automated system would further tax our already stretched volunteer staff. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The taxobox is for species not for classes of animals. Maybe we could create our very own simple template based on the needs of classes? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? I thought it could be used for any level of taxon...? It's used in Mammal, Bird, Reptile... Is there something particular about the template that you find won't work for classes? Osiris (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

English wiki has several different kinds of taxoboxes. One is called species box. The main problem is that taxonomy is in flux because of the effect of cladistics and genome analysis. Instead of Linnaean terms like order, family &c., this gives clades, tribes, &c. Unfortunately, once you have a particular kind of taxobox, this decides what kind of classification you can use. Thus the older taxobox just doesn't work unless you fill in "Kingdom", whether you want to or not. I've said somewhere that it will take 20 years for the classification to stabilise. Meanwhile, we should probably stick to a manual taxobox. It's not actually necessary to have it on all biology pages! If it's a page on a bird, for example, you may only need the order and family. Sometimes the older method is perfectly satisfactory. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If our current taxobox can display those higher classifications (kingdom, domain) then that's perfectly fine to use. My main concern is not having the ability to show those classifications and just have species, family and class. I actually copied-paste the template on the Amphibian article from the Reptile article. The only problem is the Domain, which does not show on the article itself. Is it possible to add that classification on the template? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 18:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Both the {{taxobox}} and {{automatic taxobox}} are fully capable of displaying any taxon; this is a common misunderstanding. Specialized taxoboxes include the {{speciesbox}}, {{subspeciesbox}}, {{infraspeciesbox}}, {{oobox}}, {{ichnobox}}, and {{virusbox}}, none of which are "required"-- these are only meant to simplify things. My recommendation is to keep using the current {{taxobox}} on this wiki. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mourning Dove and Le Spectre de la rose are now Very good

Hello all,

I just noticed, Mourning Dove and Le Spectre de la rose have been promoted to Very good articles in the last month. Along with 34 others, they are now able to showcase the ability of this community to produce articles that are able to explain difficult concepts in easy to understand language. Congratulations to all those who helped in the process. --Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the promotion of Mourning Dove, one support and one neutral don't make a consensus in my mind. Albacore (talk · changes) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was two users who supported the article lolz. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 18:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I see Osris as one, who was the other? Albacore (talk · changes) 17:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I do believe I'm an editor as well?. Of course I did not say "support" because we are not supposed to per rules. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 12:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the article mourning dove is not ready yet? --Eptalon (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think its a GA but I don't think its a VGA. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I would comment on procedure as follows

1. The closure of the discussion was improper, and should have been reverted. I think Mourning Dove was a perfectly satisfactory GA, but a borderline VGA. The absence of comments is not grounds for promotion, especially at VGA level. It is not sufficient for VGA for a page to be cleansed of micro-faults; it needs to be positively supported, and clearly so.
2. We have got ourselves into trouble over VGAs before by being slack, let's try not to get in the same place again. Because we permit contributors to list a whole string of pages for promotion, we have strained our capacity to deal with the constant flow. The ones that are clearly no-hopers are not a problem. But we have hundreds (thousands) of pages which are pretty good, and just a few people who are capable and willing to shepherd them through the process. The number of pages being proposed is stretching the system to breaking point. I'm as guilty as anyone in not commenting enough, but I prefer to edit rather than comment on other people's work.
3. I have said before (but without any support) that elements of the English wiki system would improve us. And we should restrict any person to only one promotion proposal at any one time. And the criteria should be toughened up in the area of general qualities such as quality of prose. Some people have the idea that if they clear up all the micro-faults a page should automatically be supported. For me, the list of criteria is too narrowly focussed.
4. As for Mourning Dove, it's not a problem to have it as a VGA. The way it was done certainly is an issue.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I very much agree with what Mac has said, especially with the number of submissions being so disproportionate to the number of people reviewing. I try to leave a review of each article submitted, but the more submissions there are, the less time I can give to review them as thoroughly as I might have wanted. And with less than a handful of reviewers looking at a multitude of nominations, the standards are going to drop.

• I know that enwiki has a PGA backlog going back to April, but that's not something we should be seeing here. Not all of the editors submitting nominations are reviewing those of others. PGA should be totally self-sufficient: if you submit a nomination, review someone else's.
• Too many nominations are relying on reviewers to put in the hard work – I've found myself spending too much time on nominations that aren't even close to meeting the cut.
• Perhaps exacerbating the problem is that peer review redirects to PGA. If we need a place where editors can go to request general reviews of their work, it should be here (like Philosopher has done below). With so few people active on PGA, it should only be for articles that meet the GA requirements.
• Putting a limit on the number of nominations you can have at one time is something I would definitely support. Another remedy we might consider to guarantee standards is setting a minimum number of reviews before a nomination can be promoted.

It's great to see two new VGAs in the last month. I supported Mourning Dove and I wouldn't take it back, but I do feel as though it could have been better with more reviews. Osiris (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review redirects because of the same problem being discussed here, no one was reviewing them because editors were putting them up for review with little work done towards actually making them good articles and so people stopped reviewing because they were relying on reviewers too much. I believe the community asked people instead to ask specific people on their talk pages for reviews if they wanted them. I would have to dig up the archived discussion to be sure. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Macdonald-ross' points. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then, we need to do something about it, because two users are putting up proposals in a non-stop sequence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree completely, yes we should have a limit on the number of articles one can submit at a time, however, we shouldn't necessary punish users who actually want to improve Simple by the one nomination per user rule. It's not the nominator's fault users simply do not wish to take part in the reviewing process, instead of diminishing our good content why not think of a more positive approach? Barnstars, recognition, etc for those who part take in the reviewing process? Maybe a spotlight corner on the main page for excellent helpers and what not? Secondly, every time a user asks for the community on an article of interest, its usually 1-2 users who submit a review. So like I said, its not the nominators fault, maybe if we seek out whats the real issue (lack of reviewers) then we should tackle on what needs to be done in that area. Telling us users who seeks a future of Simple with good content just makes us want to give up on the project. Do we really want stubs over good content? This is just my opinion, I think we should focus on what we should do, collectively, on the lack of reviewers. Lets bring excitement back to the process, lets do something positive. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 15:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you see going through the GA/VGA process as helping the wiki. A large number of us have said and have told you in the past that we actually feel that going through the GA/VGA process on a wiki this small with this few editors actually hurts the wiki more than it helps. It takes an extraordinary amount of time to take articles to a VGA status. Something you have never seemed to understand. In the time it takes to get one article to VGA status a user could probably get 10-20 to a good status. (what I mean by good is a decent article, but not with all the nitpicky details done that are required of a VGA or GA.) What helps the wiki more? Taking 20 articles from stub to a decent state or making sure one article has used the same cite template on every citation or that the right number of spaces are used after each period in a single article? So in saying that please don't make it sound like you are helping the wiki by doing what you are doing and that no one else is helping the wiki if they don't waste their time helping you fix articles that should already before nomination be a lot better than they are when you nominate them. By all means if people want to get articles to GA and VGA that is great as everyone helps in their own way. But certainly don't think the process is broken when it really isn't. No one ever said getting a GA or a VGA is easy. It usually takes a few months to get an article to the quality that it could be called a VGA. And at the rate some people are nominating them, they clearly aren't putting in the effort needed to get the articles to a VGA status and expect everyone else to help them fix the articles. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to help bring in reviewers. I don't want ribbons or prizes, I just want to be able to point out a few things that the author has missed, read it over and then make a decision as to whether it's worthy. But what seems to be happening at the moment is that nominators have got multiple nominations going on at once and they're relying on reviewers to spend time pointing out obvious deficiencies, that should have been dealt with prior to the article being submitted. Once the reviewer calls to the nominator's attention these issues, the nominator fixes them and then sits back and waits for the reviewer to find more. It does take a lot of work to get an article up to scratch, and editors can't just throw half-a-dozen submissions at us at once and expect us to point out the same issues over and over under each nomination. It's not "punishing" you to allow you only one nomination at a time; it just forces you to be more committed to each nomination. Osiris (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said. A few times I've felt that a nominator hasn't put any serious effort into improving an article before nominating it. This process isn't supposed to be "let's work together to get this article to V/GA status", it's supposed to be "I think I've gotten this article close to V/GA status, now I'll ask my fellow editors what I've missed". --Auntof6 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, another thought what about a rule that if a user wants to nominate an article, they must give a review (lets say a min of two nominated articles), I have given reviews for almost all nominated content, however, there are nominators there who simply do not and could help this area. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of active nominations in the process: possible guideline?

I think a simple rule of only one active nomination at a time is just common sense. Promoting an article takes time and concentration. What would be the process for making this a rule or guideline? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I agree with the majority here now, it's only fair. What would be nice if we all, as a community, start a draft version of the guidelines/rules for the process, of course in one sandbox. We all should also consider everyone's proposal so it will be fair to everyone and this case no one is left out. Everyone's proposal should go through consensus like we've always have done. What do you guys think? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 12:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the effort involved in getting an article to GA/VGA, I would very much doubt an editor has the time needed to "support" more than two nominations of his/her. --Eptalon (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So I believe we reach consensus for the one nomination per user rule. Anyone want to start a draft that could be located for everyone to submit what they believe should be in the process? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you in a hurry here, Jona? We've only been discussing this for a couple of days. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have to echo Auntof6 here. 7 days is usually the minimum we give for consensus to be reached on such matters. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. One nomination per user is enough. When I get to write something, then I usually have more than enough to do to get it promoted. Also, it always takes time from other people to review the articles and give input, to help fixing issues etc. One nom per user should be reasonable. -Barras talk 17:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely reasonable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• It's virtually impossible to concentrate on dozens of articles at once for most people writing or reviewing them for (V)GA, so this looks like a good guideline. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that nominations should be limited to articles that have attracted bonafide scholarly interest. We might ask that articles display at least three scholarly references. Pop culture articles about movies and starlets that rely on magazine and newspaper reviews are fine in the catalog but do we really need to push these sorts of articles through VGA? Oregonian2012 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Normally I would say that yes they belong just like any other. But we do seem to have an over abundance of them showing up for nomination lately. However, I wouldn't know how to prevent the over abundance from happening while still allowing some to get through. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with limiting the types of articles that can be promoted. If they meet the criteria any article is deserving of being a GA or VGA. Part of the issue is that articles are being written and then immediately asked to be promoted. There are typos, bad links, unsimplified phrases which the author should have spot on perfect before asking others to review the article. Wikipedia is not censored - so no limiting which types of pages are worth our time to promote. --Tbennert (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Simple English Wikipedia has always until recently worked under the "Common topics only" idea. Where we try to avoid such specialized material. Now that part was removed from our WP:NOT recently as it was being used inappropriately too much. However, we should still aim to mostly just cover the core topics. Don't confuse us with en. But like I said not sure we could prevent too much pop culture in the GA process. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure when your recently was that the wiki had common topics only. Jessica Alba and Red Hot Chili Peppers were promoted to VGA in 2008. Also, at the risk of sounding the uneducated American Le Dieu bleu would not be a core topic. Just because it is about ballet and "bonafide scholarly interest" doesn't mean it is core. Just because an article is about something sophisticated or old doesn't make it more appropriate for the encyclopedia. The strength we have is in various people with diverse backgrounds contributing. I really hate the idea of telling people that they shouldn't work really hard to get articles up to a high quality because the topic isn't fancy enough for us. I know that it used to be core topics, but it isn't any longer. The issue here is not in the types of articles being nominated but the quality. --Tbennert (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with limiting only one article per nominator. The articles should be in very good shape and not use GA and VGA as a peer review. Once an article is placed for consideration I have been seeing large revisions still being made by the author. If they were ready to go for promotion there shouldn't be a need for these changes. --Tbennert (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that bro. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with one article at a time per nominator. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly one at a time for PVGA. At PGA, I'd like to see a system that allows it to be self-sufficient. Elements of the system at enwiki, wherein one reviewer "adopts" a nomination and decides whether it passes, could be very beneficial here. Still setting a limit, but allowing for the possibility of that limit being higher -- if an editor submits a nomination, (s)he "adopts" someone else's nomination, sees it through and eventually scores it against the criteria. Other editors could still be free to chime in, and quality could still be assured by having someone else, very familiar with the process, to finally close the nomination. I realise that might be a bit idealistic at the moment, though, and would settle for just setting a limit of one per editor for now. Osiris (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed but you would need to narrow the guidelines for that esp for the "experienced editors" (what is considered an experienced editor?, etc) but like the idea. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with one nomination per user at a time, but to be clear, I disagree with one nom in total at any one time. For example one user cannot nominate two articles at the one time, but two users can nominate two articles at the same time. Not sure if that was suggested anywhere but I'd like to make that clear. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What about: Two nominations total, per user, for PGA and PVGA? - This also leaves room for one user nominating two at PGA, or two at PVGA, provided the user has none runnin in the oher caregory; I am somewhat against grouping users. And yes, if three different people nominate threee articles at PGA, we do have three nominations there. I also think we should respect the delays more: There is no point in a nomination sitting there for months. Either we can get the article to the proposed status, in the proposed time, or we can't. We shouldn't extend the timeframe more than one week. Originally proposed is two weeks fixing, one week voting. If we extend that, this means three weeks fixing, one week voting. If the article cannot be fixed to meet the requirements, the article was not good enough. --Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "one nomination per user" is the way to go, for PGA and PVGA, so users may have one of each out at the same time, but not two per (i.e not two at PVGA but none at PGA). I also agree that the "three week fixing period" and the "one week voting period" would be useful. Albacore (talk · changes) 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

One nomination per user is enough. The more an user noms, the longer they will have to wait to receive input. I reviewed four articles yesterday evening and this afternoon and I had to spend about six hours for this. If you really do a useful review and look at most things (which I haven't done here, actually), then you need at the very least one to two hours to completely review an article. If there are now like two or three nominations from the same user at the same time, the articles usually have all the same issues, so I would actually kind of waste my time. Furthermore, once the first review is done and the articles has been fixed, you read it again and look if everything is good now. It is a really time-consuming process and only few users are willing to put in the needed amount of time in it. I think one article per user is enough, then it still takes weeks. It is nice to have many nominations and all, but it isn't that useful to keep stuff there nominated for months because there are also several other articles that need to be reviewed etc. -Barras talk 22:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And moreover, if a couple of editors clog the system up with multi-proposals, this naturally deters others from making proposals themselves. I think we have a wide consensus on this point, and it only remains to decide whether to allow an editor to put up one article in each category. Personally, I would say no, just one proposal overall. And we should think about applying the time limits more strictly. We have been letting some of them drag on for two months or more, making the problems in the system so much the worse. The originally intent was two weeks, on the basis that articles should be 'nearly there' before they are proposed. That may have been a bit unrealistic, but we should drop the axe on them after a month, IMO. In saying this, I assume that if we have fewer proposals which start in better shape, then we can concentrate our effort on criticisms and revisions more efficiently. At the moment, both proposers and commenters are spreading their efforts thinly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Iowa Supreme Court

I've just created Iowa Supreme Court from en:Iowa Supreme Court. If someone wanted to look its language over, that'd be great! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Chip123456 ^Talk_Changes 20:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference Tooltips

Reference Tooltips

Is there a specific reason why Reference Tooltips aren't enabled here in the Simple English Wikipedia? They are enabled on the regular English Wikipedia already. Think that they'd be quite comfortable. --weltforce (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't imported the scripts yet. Will only take a moment, if nobody has any objections. I haven't tested it out yet, but it looks like if you have navigation popups enabled you won't see any change. Osiris (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I had Navigation popups enabled for a time, but then I got rid of them. Can you please import the script? --weltforce (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Gadget is imported. Haven't set it to default, so you'll have to enable it in your settings. Osiris (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --weltforce (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone look at Template:Location map Australia Sydney?

Resolved. Osiris (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This template is getting a loop somehow. I don't see the difference between this one and others that don't have the problem. Would someone take a look? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing a <noinclude> tag, so the documenation was being transcluded creating a loop. Osiris (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work! --Auntof6 (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The next Big Weekend – 10 to 13 August

The weekend has begun! DJDunsie (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Editors are invited to take part in the next big weekend, the Big Space Weekend, on 10 to 13 August. Our goal is to increase the number and quality of space-related articles.

How to help out

Here are some ideas on how to take part in the Big Space Weekend.

• The Solar System GA effort needs to be completed
• Missing articles need to be created

Ranger program • Kessler syndrome • Pluto Kuiper Express • Kármán line • Solar flare • Van Allen radiation belt • Arecibo Observatory • Celestial mechanics • Magellan (spacecraft) • Lunar Roving Vehicle • New Frontiers program • Apollo 15 • Space weather • HD 85512 b • Orbital mechanics • Asteroid mining • Space colonisation • Heliophysics • Gravitational field • Kepler-22b

• Stubs need to be expanded
• Articles need to be referenced

List of those taking part

Sign your name here with three tildes (~~~) if you are taking part:

• DJDunsie (talk)
• Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever}
• Macdonald-ross (talk)
• -Mh7kJ (talk)
• Peterdownunder (talk)
• Prad2609 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Osiris (talk)
• Auntof6 (talk)

Remember

• All articles need at minimum two of references and a picture
• Be bold and do not hesitate to create further red links if they are needed
• Put the {{inuse}} on all articles you are creating/editing to avoid edit conflicts.
• So we can measure what happens, start all your edit summaries with "BSW" for Big Space Weekend.

Happy editing!

The coordinator, DJDunsie (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (thanks to Peterdownunder for this template)

-re-added, as this is taking place this weekend. --Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea and thank you. DJDunsie (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag of India

At List of IOC country codes, flag templates may be helpful. In the process of modifying the table formats in this article, I have had no problems adding 80+ flags.

However, my change here revealed a problem with the flag of India. I don't see how I could have caused this. If I did do something wrong, what was it?

I don't know how to repair this, nor do I know how to find where the mistake exists. Before asking for help, what else could I have tried to do ...? --Horeki (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem was Template:Flag/core, I fixed it now. All the best, --weltforce (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know about Template:Flag/core. I still don't quite understand why India was the only flag affected by whatever it was you fixed? Will you please explain again in different words. --Horeki (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue, he just thought what he did fixed the problem because he hit save right after I fixed the actual problem. :) That is why it didn't affect any of the other flags. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it, it wasn't what weltforce mentions. Someone did a test edit on the country data for India. As for what you could have done, basically just look at the flag template code and see where it gets its information from. Other than that you could do just what you did by coming here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand one phrase -- "look at the flag template code and see where it gets its information from" ...? Will you please explain again in different words. --Horeki (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at how the template for the flag is written and see where it is getting the information it displays. Then go to that page and fix the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso, thank you. I see your change here at Template:Country data India. --Horeki (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you. --weltforce (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Blank adminstats

• Template:Adminstats/Bluegoblin7
• Template:Adminstats/EVula
• Template:Adminstats/Kennedy
• Template:Adminstats/Jamesofur
• Template:Adminstats/Lauryn Ashby
• Template:Adminstats/NonvocalScream

These are blank, some of them are used, others not. Is there a point in keeping them around in the template namespace? Does anyone mind if I move them to userspace? I can hardcode the last available statistics into the page. Osiris (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do -- that will get them out of the uncategorized template list. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would just delete them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, they're gone. Osiris (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How to fix a broken part of a page?

How do I fix a broken part of Vale of Rheidol Railway? It says "runs for 11+3⁴_{{{4}}} miles when it should not. Please help me remove the three { and the three }. I am sorry if I asked in the wrong place. I work at the non-simple English Wikipedia. It is hard for me to write simply. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. The convert template doesn't handle fractions. You have to specify the number as a decimal. And this is a perfectly fine place to ask, by the way! --Auntof6 (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)