Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I've noticed that uncyclopedia and recently enWP have started using this special user access level which enables normal users the rollback tool, which all admins have. In other words, is basically normal users with one extra tool. Anyways, I think that this wiki should probably also start the rollback access too. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that people should be allowed access to the rollback function, but in this case, I think it should be only allowed to people who are more than 2 months old and have at least the approval of 3 or more of the current admins. Agreed? Razorflame 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That would seem to make sense. Do not users with the Twinkle tool on EN Wiki has access to the rollback function anyway? Anyone can add that over there just by putting the coding in their monobook - brand new editor or not. As long as every user accepts that they are responsible for what they do with the tool - and they are prepared to accept any repercussions for misuse - then surely there wouldn't be too much of a problem?
What is the rollback tool and the twinkle tool? I.Rosary 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It allows administrators to revert vandalous changes with a click of a button rather than having to click the undo button. Razorflame 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool. That sounds like a good idea. I agree with Razorflame's first comment, only for users who have been here 2 or more months and have the approval of atleast 3 admins. Seems to make sence. I.Rosary 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I said this was because I believe that giving every user the rollback function would allow for a greater chance of revert wars, which I think should be prevented at all costs. Therefore, there should be some restrictions as to who gets the rollback function. Razorflame 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd support it's introduction, but perhaps a looser policy on who gets it. A month + approval sounds better to me, I can't really see the risk in it. Archer7 - talk 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
All right. I support 1 month+approval of the admininstrators. Razorflame 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be in support of giving rollback to non admins with approval, but we would need the developers to turn it on(I think) Oysterguitarist 02:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I support giving rollback to non-admins with at least 1 month of experience and the approval of three admins. Maybe a page where non-admins can request rollback could be at Wikipedia:Requests for rollback like at enWP, and there could be a section where admins who approve can sign. An example of a possible request:


Example (talk · contribs)

<reason for rollback> Example (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins who approve

Lights (talk) § 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic

I have already sent a message to him if the bureaucrats were willing to add rollback status to this wiki. I have also sent him a small [proposed] list or guidelines for people to warrant the rollback tool.
  • Minimum of 1 month experience (required),
  • Minimum of at least 2 admins approving/supporting,
  • Admins (as well as 'crats) should be able to grant/revoke rollback access,
  • Suggested a minimum of 200 edits although it is not necessarily required.
--§ Snake311 (T + C) 08:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I'm fine with the requirements stated above. - Huji reply 09:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with the requirements as well. Razorflame 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How about adding an extra requirement such as "no blocks for six months" or so? MindTheGap (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this is needed. Razorflame 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I think the following would be good criteria

  • Has actively contributed for at least a month
  • 500 edits (in mainspace)
  • 2 admins approving
  • No blocks in the last three months
  • Usual election rules (like RFA); 1 week, 5 votes; 50% support (plus the 2 admins)

What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Since several users above have shown some approval to have rollback, I think that the community as a whole should decide wether to have rollback access to this wiki. Support is to support for rollback while oppose is to oppose for rollback status. Just to let you know:-) --§ Snake311 (T + C) 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - I support this idea. I.Rosary 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a decision to be made by running a poll. Remember, en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I think we should reach consensus here in a different way. - Huji reply 07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? Then what is this for? --§ Snake311 (T + C) 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because another wikipedia has a poll, doesn't mean we have to do the same. I also think we should reach consensus in a different way. Oysterguitarist 14:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
How? Well to be honest with you, I really hate debates and pain-in-the-*** discussions that last over two weeks on one topic or issue. Not that I'm opposing your idea on how to gain consensus, I just like things to go out simply and easily. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask what part the bureaucrats should have in this? You mentioned "if the bureaucrats were willing to add rollback status to this wiki" - not sure that we have any part in that decision, surely that's what this discussion is for? Archer7 - talk 12:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) If the idea is that the reps. user is chosen worthy (based on some criteria, for example age of the account, and activity level), then this is certainly doable by any admin; Remember Crats and Checkusers are for special things only. Any yes, a poll does not replace a discussion. --Eptalon (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do non admins think rollback is needed? None of those asking for it have said what it actually does?--Bärliner 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be frank it is not needed on a Wiki of this size. Vandals rarely, from what I've seen, make more than one edit to the page before the edit is reverted here, meaning rollback would save little, if any, time. Using pop-ups to revert the last "good" version is just as easy. In some ways it does more harm than good as it allows all edits by an editor to be reverted without the reverting editor even needing to check the subsequent diffs. MindTheGap (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:There are some of us who cannot use pop-ups, like me. Razorflame 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why did everyone above show interest in rollback and now are declining about it? --§ Snake311 (T + C) 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've always been against it, I just never voiced my opinions. It can erase a whole section of an article with a simple click, whilst with the undo button, one has to go through several stages so there can be no accidental error. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It helps tremendously against vandalism, though. Razorflame 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A tremendous 5 seconds saved? --Gwib -(talk)- 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
5 seconds could mean the difference, though, when dealing with large amounts of vandalism :) Razorflame 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It gets cleaned up eventually. Oysterguitarist 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I still think we can (someday?) have some users with this permission. Maybe (based on the comments so far) it is still soon for our wiki... - Huji reply 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think that we can have a few editors with this permission, but I also agree that it may be a bit too soon to have this happen to our Wikipedia. Razorflame 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I think that we can wait a few more months before this wiki has rollback permission. But the ever-increasing amounts of vandalism should still be monitored closely. --§ Snake311 (T + C) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

this is an incredibly good idea, but cross-wiki experience should be taken into account. I cannot get TW working properly here (though I'm still fiddling), so having native rollback would be nice. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Mike.lifeguard. There is just too much reverting that needs to be done, and it would be very beneficial if we included rollback in the Simple English Wikipedia! Razorflame 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good articles

Hello community, the very good article process in currently halted. Various poeple have put their ideas in a new guideline (proposal, and Comments). The deadline we have set ourselves is January 14. Here are a few comments

  • New item: Article must be comprehensive.
  • General agreement of 5k article size; these are counted excluding infoboxes, images and other addons. Currently there is a discussion of requiring an additional "word count" (of about 1000-1500 words)
  • There is a general agreement that the article must have gone through a few revisions, before becoming a VGA; there still is a little hick-hack on the exact wording though.
  • Additional items to require that important words be linked (usually at their first usage).
  • As to references: there are still two positions, either full references were possible, or require one reference or external link.
  • To get promoted, a VGA needs 6 votes; and either 75% or 80% support (still under discussion)
  • New section of how articles get demoted; basic idea, there is a time (of 2 weeks), where failing articles can be fixed; if they are not, they lose their status and must go through the process again

I hope these points can be sorted out; so that we can take the version we have on the 14th as a basis to vote on. --Eptalon (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all points above, but what happens to the VG articles which have already passed? Do we leave them or do we re-introduce them with the new system? Sorry if this has already been answered somewhere else. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The idea there was to quickly run through the current VGAs once we have the new criteria, to identify the "problem cases". Under normal circumstances, almost all VGAs will keep their current status. Also once we agreed on the new criteria, we can work out the criteria for good articles, based on them. We do not need the Good article criteria to restart the process. --Eptalon (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


How do I make an infobox or put an infobox on a page? Alexhl (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Alexhl

Infoboxes are templates. Creating templates needs a good understanding of Wikicode (the coding language of MediaWiki). Using templates is easy. You can read more here and find some of our infobox templates here. - Huji reply 11:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Huji! Alexhl (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Alexhl


How do I create a fancy, colourful signature? On this talk page I see lots of different signatures - can I do something to make my signature look bright too?—This unsigned comment was added by Alexhl (talkchanges) 09:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to design your signature for you, but you need to tell me what colours you want it to be and what you want it to say. You should also sign your posts with ~~~~. Gwib -(talk)- 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be asking for too much from you if it's hard for you to do this, but can I have "Alexhl" in dark blue and bold, please?

Christian denominations..

Hello, I just reorganised the Christian denominations page.

As follows:

  • There are Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant subcats
  • I don't know what to with the Puritans, they were not Protestants, were they?
  • Baptism and Arianism also are left at the top level, as I cannot place them
  • The Category:Armenian_Apostolic_Church looks like belonging to Orthodox Christianity
  • The Armenian Evangelical Church is a protestant one?

Any help would be appreciated--Eptalon (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Puritans and Evangelical are both protestants, Apostolic is Oriental Orthodox, Arianism is none of the above (christianity and Ancient Rome), Baptism would be all of the above (christianity). -- Creol(talk) 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Classified as such (Puritans are Calinists); The quakers (Religious Society of Friends) and Amish are also reclassified as Protestant; Orthodox Christianty has been renamed Eastern Christian denominations; Arianism, together with Mormonism, and Jehowas Witnesses (the latter two are also Protestant) went to Nontrinitarianism. --Eptalon (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Are the Methodists Anglicans? Do we have any more of these, to make a Category:Methodism? --Eptalon (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Not any more. They are a separarte denomination of protestantism--Bärliner 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with your explanation of Baptism, Creol. See: Baptist "Baptists do not practice infant baptism."--Cethegus (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, they are listed as simply Protestant; once we get more such organisations (they seem to be the second largest group in the US) we can put them into their category (under Protestantism). --Eptalon (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

change my name

on english wikipedia you're allowed to change your username. can you do that here? if so, i'd like to change my username to Drama Queen ?—This unsigned comment was added by Musicfan (talkchanges) 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thats possible, talk to your favorite bureaucrat from this list --Eptalon (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you a bureaucrat? It's says you're a checkuser, does that mean you can change usernames, too? --Musicfan (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not a bureaucrat, check users have different responisbilities. I suggest you contact archer7, he is very active and generally a nice character. I.Rosary 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a CheckUser, not a Bureaucrat. CheckUsers can check where users log in from; this can be very useful for fighting vandals. Bureaucrats can rename users, and make new admins, thats different. --Eptalon (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

External links on user pages

I'm not too sure of the policy on this Wiki, but are links to personal sites allowed on user pages? MindTheGap (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We never discussed that; Anything speaking against it? --Eptalon (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, forget my post - EN Wiki specifically says links to personal homepages are allowed, I mis-remembered MindTheGap (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistics are updated

I have updated the statistics I gather for our wiki. This include some general statistics presented in graphs, and some edit counts presented in tables.

As you will notice, User:Lights has been singnificantly the most active user in the past two months. Thank you, Lights!

Also, in my eyes, comparison of the graphs for the last six months of 2007 with those pertaining the first six months of this year, shows we are litterally "keeping up the good work"! Thank you every one!

Cheers, - Huji reply 12:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I see I am another very active user here. I'm glad for that :) Razorflame 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you did well. Thank you - Huji reply 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it me, or is it the first time I have made over 1k edits within one month? --§ Snake311 (T + C) 07:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good article criteria

Today is the last day to talk about the criteria. A few points still remain short of having reached consensus. These are: Point 3: length of articles, Point 4: revisions by multiple users, Point 11: references, and the minimum amount of support during voting.

We are also talking about whether to have a separate page for demotions or to put it on the Proposals for VGAs page. There are many voices we have not yet heard. I know you're all busy, but please take a few minutes to come say what you think so we can un-freeze the process. Thank you. · Tygrrr... 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has helped decide on the new criteria for VGAs. Thank you!!! The good news is that, as of the deadline yesterday, we have 8 of the 10 criteria decided, as well as the amount of support needed for promotion and a new system for demotions. We are so extremely close to being finished that I can practically taste it! Everyone is doing an excellent job so far. But...(there's always a but, isn't there?)...we still have 2 points that are very close to consensus but not quite there just yet. We could use some fresh ideas and a few more opinions. Therefore, I am extending the deadline for these 2 points to Friday, January 25th. We've decided so much in one short month. Surely we can reach consensus on these last 2 points in a week and a half--especially if you click here right now and share your opinion. Thanks again for helping out! I'm looking forward to hearing some new voices :-) · Tygrrr... 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


I can use the HotCat Gadget on de: and nds: wikis. Commons has the tool too. Is there any chance of of the gadget being added or adapted for SEWP? --Bärliner 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done-- Creol(talk) 13:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask what this does, how it works, etc? It's not clear to me from the link above... · Tygrrr... 15:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Instead of simply showing the categories, each category will have a "+" and "-" button to change that category, as well as a "+" button to add a new category. The system is also linked to the category tree so less chance of duplicating or misspelling categories.--Bärliner 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Thanks! · Tygrrr... 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Creol this is now a gadget in preferences. And for those wjo regularly trawl for {{uncat}}, adding a category with this gadget automatically removes {{uncat}}. Or at least it does for me:)--Bärliner 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi there. With the new HotCat tool and a possible heightened interest in categories, I thought it was finally time to move forward with an idea I've had for a while to have a "WikiProject" (for lack of a better word) for categories. Hopefully it will serve as a centralized location for the few and the proud who actually enjoy categorizing :-) There's a lot to work on, and anyone is welcome to help. If you want to check it out, you can find it here. · Tygrrr... 18:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


I have recently updated Wikipedia:WikiProject to reflect our current handling of WikiProjects. There is also a list of current projects there. I did a quick search for wikiprojects and added the ones I found to the list of "Current WikiProjects". If I missed you--I'm sorry! You can go and add it yourself pretty easily, though. · Tygrrr... 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects again

I think templates like {{Ancient Athens Project Page}} shouldn't be used unless the wikiproject is accepted by the community as a wikiproject. User subpage wikiprojects shouldn't be allowed to mark articles.

Aside from that, I think such templates should only apear on the talk page of an article.

Any objections? - Huji reply 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections. I agree. When a project is accepted as a wikiproject it can use the templates to mark article talk pages. There is the a far greater possibility of a proposed project being abandoned that a project which has been accepted. An abandoned proposal could result in massive housekeeping trying to find a variety of "dead" templates littering the mainspace.--Bärliner 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi !

I am a person contributing on English wikipedia ,wikiversity and wikitionary as well.I'm curious to know what good can i do here?Due to lack of time I only had a minor look at this wikipedia's main page.Is it possible to edit the same article here in simple English and on English wikipedia in that English.Waiting for suggestions...Cheers,-- (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but we do not want articles just copied and pasted. Wikipedia:Useful has a list of useful pages, including "How to edit" and "How to write" . Hope you will create an account and become a regular contributor --Bärliner 16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia in the news

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but we were featured in an article in The Guardian [1] on Monday :) Majorly (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow! This is so exciting! That was a great article! Razorflame 15:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I liked the quote
"but then again, what you don't know about Lindsay Lohan won't hurt you.".
Can we {{qd}} Lindsay Lohan now :)?--Bärliner 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who cleaned up FWW :D. So indirectly, I'm in the news!
Btw will come back to edit once my teachers stop massacring my evenings. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
ROTFL (about Ms Lohan's story!) - Huji reply 21:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
On the plus side, we know other people saw the article. Lohans article has had an increase in activity (ok, increase in vandalism..) in the last few days which it hasn't seen in a while. On the down side, we probably should expand the article a wee bit. At least and infobox or something. -- Creol(talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Now our fellows in Guardian are feeling jealous, because their pages are not wikis and they cannot update their text to reflect the advances in Lindsay Lohan! - Huji reply 22:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
By tradition our fellows in The Grauniad karnt spel jelus. Thats why they moved from Manchesta to Londin --Bärliner 14:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christianity cleanup

Hello, I have started with a cleanup of the Category christianity. There are too many articles there. I therefore want to propose a new structure:

  1. Categories:
  • Christian art (everything art related)
  • Christian clergy (for all the people)
  • C denominations (all the different beliefs that can be considered christian)
  • C feasts/holidays
  • C writings (all the writings)

The problem there is however in the details:

  • For example, all cathedrals are churches; if we want to classify them both by where they are, and what Christian denomination they belong to, we end up with 4 subcats.
  • Where do we put all the people, given Christian clergy is for the functions, mostly.


I would really be grateful for a few hands to reorganise this mess --Eptalon (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The problems with churches and cathedrals could be handled by combining the categories (Cat:Churches and cathedrals). This helps in another way as many times, the article isn't exactly clear on if it is a church or a cathedral and sometimes the article is wrong in the label. At that point subcats would eventually include a break down by religion which may or may not include the complete name (for religions which do not have both churches and cathedrals). Another option would be to use Category:Christian buildings and structures. This would help for dealing with things that are called neither church nor cathedral but very similar (Mormon temples for instance) and would be a subcat of Category:Religious buildings and structures to include mosques, synagogues, Celtic worship structures, Jedi temples.. permanent pray sites to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, whatever else applies. -- Creol(talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Where do we put all the people? - in the churches and cathedrals, that was what they were made for after all. -- Creol(talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
FOund a solution for the people; everything that is considered clergy can habe a subcat in Christian clergy; only the offices are in Christian Clergy. For others, we need to do Characters mentioned in the Bible (Cat:Bible, etc). --Eptalon (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Would also have to take in to account people based on religion who are not clergy but are widely recognized for their religion. An overly involved (ie. as complete as I could think of) layout based on the general categorization of people can be found here. As to the others.. someone will always through a fit when category:Biblical characters is a subcat of category:Bible and Category:Fictional characters. There needs to be some way to avoid this.. Biblical people and no link to characters may be a better option. -- Creol(talk) 18:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Characters mentioned in the Bible, as a subcat of Bible? - The bible also mentions non-human characters; supposedly angels, demons? --Eptalon (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Christian Clergy as a subcat of Christian religious leaders. No argument as to were the popes go. The Wesleys are religious leaders rather than clergy?--Bärliner 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The popes are one of the 5 classical Patriarchates (The others are Constantinople (Istanbul), Antiochia, Alexandria, and Jerusalem); at the moment there seem to be 10 partiarchs in the Roman-Catholic Church as well - not including the pope, who got rid of the title in 2006. What makes the thing worse is that some churches have catholikoi (sig. catholkos); which are above the resp. patriarchs (Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church) --Eptalon (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As to clergy: Most of the time, clergy is ordained. The instances where priests are made by pointing a finger at them and saying You are a priest noware relatively rare; And yes, Charles Wesley (1707-88) and John Wesley (1703-91) both studied theology; they both became priests; John was ordained in 1728. I will fix that.--Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Created Category:Characters from the Bible; perhaps a problem, some Characters have books associated with them. Also we only seem to have one Evangelist (Luke) so far...; what about differentiating the books into Old Testament and New Testament; also, some books are not part of all bibles... --Eptalon (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, is there a way to create redirect pages on this wikipedia? --Belovedfreak (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Create a new page (with the name of whatever article you want to redirect from). Add this code:
  • #REDIRECT [[proper article name]]
--Gwib -(talk)- 14:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --Belovedfreak (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary templates

I think we should redirect {{wiktionarypar}} to {{wiktionary}} but want to discuss it before making this potentially controversial change. Here is my reasoning:

  1. If a user needs their encyclopedic articles in Simple English, they probably need their dictionary definitions in Simple English
  2. We should be promoting the Simple English Wiktionary, not the "regular" English Wiktionary

What do others think? · Tygrrr... 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems logical and I'm quite surprised that it isn't already the way things are done! MindTheGap (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. If {{wiktionarypar}} is redirected though, there will a lot of removal to do since some pages that exist at the English Wiktionary don't exist at Simple English Wiktionary. Lights (talk) § 03:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
As each page with Wiktionarypar will need to be checked individually to see if it exists in simple:wikt, it would probably be better to change templates rather than redirect for those already using it. For future articles, redirecting it would also cause this check to be done each time it is added, mostly from articles imported from En. As Simple:wikt is well beyond the state it was when wiktionarypar was created, it may be a better idea to delete the template rather than redirect it to prevent having to constantly check if the links are valid. -- Creol(talk) 05:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm thinking of writing a bot which well fetch a list of all pages with {{wiktionary}} on them, checks if a page with the same name exists in Simple Wiktionary and replaces the template. It will take some time for me to do the bot, but if there is no hurry, I think we should let a bot do it and spend our precious times on other things. - Huji reply 08:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's your precious time though. But I would be very grateful if you could do it, since I have difficulties with writing my own Simpl:wikt-pages and tend to use {{wiktionarypar}} not that seldom instead. --Cethegus (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am currently going through all the {{wiktionarypar}} linked pages and seeing if a valid replacement exists on S:wikt. There were only about 350 pages originally linked so it isn't that bad of a process to do by hand but a bot would be hard pressed to work up for the job as certain cases require a tense check to get a "close enough" link (ie. beg instead of begging). There are also times the page exists by has no definition that matches the linking page (spoke is part of a wheel, wikt:spoke is the past tense of speak - had to add the other definition over there)-- Creol(talk)

As an admin (and regular user) on se:wikt, I don't see much problem just switching it over, even if the page doesn't currently exist there. In fact, a large portion of the words using {{wiktionary}} don't have pages over there either. My current project there right now is creating those pages. If we had a big push to create them, it'd be really easy. To see a current list of what links to {{wiktionary}}, click here. · Tygrrr... 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

umm.. about that list you have over there.. It isn't quite up to date. I tossed another 80 pages onto it. (and while I was at it, another 200+ wikt links as well today, I'm sending lots of things your way it seems.) -- Creol(talk) 14:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I just updated. Should be good for a little while, at least... If we just redirect the template, I'd only have to go through it one more time and then do regular upkeep as new pages are added here. Otherwise, I'll have to keep going through...ugh... · Tygrrr... 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A list of what will be coming your way with the redirect is here. -- Creol(talk) 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

video game articles

How much should you put into a game article? For example MotorStorm here has two complete sentences, how is that useful at all? How could it possibly inform someone of the game's mechanics or other useful information? Couldn't we add a little more and at least a picture? -- ZookPS3 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add information to the article. As for images, they are more of a problem as only free images can be used. Most video games are copyrighted and there are no free images available. -- Creol(talk) 15:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure. For me the first question about an article would be: What is it that makes the subject of of the article notable. In the context of Video Games, there are probably zillions of them out there. What is it, that says we need MotorStorm? - en:Civilisation IV for example has won some awards (Best Strategy Game of the Year). To come back to MotorStorm, what is it that Makes MotorStorm notable? - So the shortest possible article about it would say why it is notable. --Eptalon (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We should only make pages for video games that are well-known throughout the world or have won some kind of prestigous award or something along those lines. Razorflame 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If Lights is currently seemingly creating articles about every lump of rock in the solar system, who is to say that every video game should not have a page?!? MindTheGap (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well thats what I mean, shouldn't all game articles be trashed since they are irrelevant to someone who is trying to learn English? -- ZookPS3 (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
With that argument, sohuldnt most of our content be thrashed? (as not relevant to english learners?) ;) --Eptalon (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Remember that we aren't only trying to teach people english. We just use (for example) "everywhere at once" instead of "ubiquitous". We simplify hard to grasp themes and articles. --Gwib -(talk)- 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok so really we should limit video game articles to those that are greatest hits or landmarks like Tetris? -- ZookPS3 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
For now, yes. Later, we will be able to add less notable ones. Razorflame 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empresses..


there were no Roman empresses; I have therefore renamed the Category to Roman Emperors; also Since the Byzantine Empire arose as East-Rome; it Byzantine Emperors is now under Roman Emperors. Removed Roman-Emperors for the few Byzantine emperors we have (as a maintenance thing); An article cannot be in a category and in another category that is the parent of the first.

And no, Cleopatra (4 I think) was never Empress of the Roman empire. --Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was Cleopara (7) Thea Philopator I was referring to. Cleopatra (4) reigned for like a year; she then married a Syriac; Fighting against his brother they lost; she was put to death because her sister (who was married to the winner, wanted that. That happened in 112BC. --Eptalon (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good articles

Hello there; we still have not reached consensus on two items in Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New. There are four days to go. It is important that we reach consensus, vote and agree on these. Once we do that we can restart the process. We can also focus on which of the criteria for VGAs agreed on, Good Articles need to meet as well; in other words we can then start worrying about good articles.

Changes to the wording is still possible until the 25; From the 26 it will be possible to vote on the set of criteria we have, for one week. --Eptalon (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)