Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 24

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few points (originally on VGA criteria talk page; not about VGAs any more; so moved from there)

  • Length of articles I believe that short articles can be very good article as well as longer ones. There is a great difference between the length needed for an article like the Bible and an article like Flight into Egypt. Or an article like Cooking and an article like Flapjacks.
  • Expression A great deal of the writing used on these pages is extremely stilted. Writers are often trying to simplify an article written by someone else for Wikipedia whose English expression may not be good to start with. In the process of looking for simple words we get people here inventing expressions that don't exist. May I quote "The first seeings of Neptune's rings...." The word is "sightings". Changing a single word is not sufficient. The sentence needed to be changed to something like "Scientist first saw the rings of Neptune when...". Almost every article that I look at has problems of that nature.
  • Bad Grammar. As I see it, the standard of requirements for writers here is higher, not lower than at Wikipedia. The reason for this is that Wikipedia readers are also wikipedia editors. If something is amiss, thenn it will be corrected very quickly. (When I continually type double letters beccause of some stupid malfunction, at wiki they are fixed in ten minutes, but here, they can stay for six months!) Here, any grammatical error you make is likely to stay for a long time. We are writing specifically for readers who cannot be expected to correct our English. And cannot be expected to decipher any sentence that is written ungrammatically.
  • Quality. What is needed here is to recruit more editors over from Wikipedia, who know how to write well! Knowing the vocabulary of Simple English and using the vocabulary effectively are two very different things.
  • Simple English? Frankly, it makes me cross to see an article about a subject that requires quite a good knowledge of the broader field to understand it, being put up as a potential "VGA" when it has been lifted out of Wkipedia with very little simplification of its complex and sometimes confusing language. This is really not appropriate for this site. I'm referring specifically to the article about the Rings of Neptune.
  • Basically, we need to up our game.

Amandajm (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there, all! I was looking around the Meta website, and I found this: template and this template. I think that these would be very helpful in many parts of the website where we do voting, more specifically, the WP:PVGA, WP:RFD, WP:RFA, WP:PGA, and WP:PAD pages. I am suggesting that these two templates be transwikied or added to the Simple English Wikipedia for use in the aformentioned pages. What do other people say about this idea? Ray7tol7zorflame 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a say about this? Razorflame 02:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea. The template surely looks better. How about a template for Neutral also? Chenzw (talkchanges) 09:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" aren't really necessary. ...Aurora... (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 VGA's

Kamikaze and Jimi Hendrix haven't been discussed about what will happen to them. I would like to propose that since just by looking at both of the pages makes me believe that they are indeed VGA's, that we put both of them back up for voting to see if the articles still make it under the new criteria for VGA's. Any other ideas? Razorflame 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you specifically know they violate the new criteria, they will stay VGAs; they will therefore stay VGAs even without a vote. --Eptalon (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that I don't like the sentence structure of the articles, they still meet all the requirements. Razorflame 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to edit them, be bold. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English writing skill levels

There is a discussion on the English Wikipedia at User categories for discussion about the various language categories that exist there for simple English. There seems to be consensus to ask over here about what kind of category you would find useful on the English Wikipedia to recruit people to help out here. How can we over there help you by the use of categories and possibly userboxes? Please comment over there or here. --Bduke (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category change?

Does anyone mind if we change Category:Valois Dynasty to Category:House of Valois? The Valois were a junior branch of the Capetian Dynasty (history of France). Durova (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical. The Plantagenents and Normans should be moved too,as relatively shortlived Royal Houses --Bärliner 02:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Durova (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge articles created by

This IP has created a lot of articles about different Pokemon. I think that all of them should be merged into one article, but there are too many of them, so I am proposing it here instead of on the articles. Chenzw (talkchanges) 09:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, How do you do that? --*JasPerTheKid (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking, I am not so sure either. Maybe a sysop can help. Chenzw (talkchanges) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a good idea to merge the histories. I suggest you move one of them to a more general name (like List of Pokémon, and paste the rest of them to it, and make them redirects. - Huji reply 11:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should merge all of the information on these pages into List of Pokémon and delete the individual pages because of the fact that each and every Pokemon are not notable enough for their own pages. The histories should not be merged as per the above point made by Huji. Razorflame 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first good articles..

Hello community,

after discussing several month over this, and similar topics, we do have the first good articles. They are

(in alphabetical order). Congratulations to all those who contributed to one or more of these. --Eptalon (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demoting VGAs..


the delay for fixing VGAs to again meet the requirements (2 weeks) will expire tomorrow, I think (18th Feb); Unless there are visible efforts to fix the articles, I propose to do the following:

Articles that should keep the VGA tag

Articles where the VGA tag is up for discussion

Both are at the lower limit of the about 5k; despite this, I think they should keep their tag

Articles to be demoted to GA

Articles to be demoted to regular articles

  • Subtropical cyclone: Has a {{complex}} tag; Not really sure it needs it, though.
  • Mali: Needs more sources, and less redlinks.
  • Chopstick: Has a few needs proving ({{fact}} templates; two in-text references, and an unnamed book; also barely long enough.
  • Tropical Storm Lee (2005): A little too short--doesn't meet GA length requirement (only 3.2 kb). 4.9k all inclusive; could use more references.
  • Proxy server: A little too short--doesn't meet GA length requirement (only 3.3 kb). 5.7k all inclusive.
  • Hurricane Vince (2005): A little too short--doesn't meet GA length requirement (only 3.3 kb). 5k all inclusive.
  • Japanese tea ceremony: A little too short--doesn't meet GA length requirement (only 3.3 kb). 4.4k all inclusive

If the community agrees that the subtropical cyclone complex tag is not really needed, we can discuss about its future as a GA; we can also discuss about extending the delay for fixing for a few days, if work is apparent on the resp. articles.

So the ball is up to the community. --Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention: All the VGAs not listed above will of course keep their status. --Eptalon (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything written (and very nicely presented) above. The only thing I want to bring up is that I think Subtropical cyclone can easily become a GA and will get to work on it ASAP. It'll be the first weather-related article I've worked on :). --Gwib -(talk)- 11:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to the above list. I feel we really have to be strict about the criteria in order to not get ourselves into the same situation as before (i.e. we've got article with GA or VGA status that don't meet the criteria). I have moved Japanese tea ceremony to the "Demote to regular articles" column because it doesn't have references, a reguirement for GAs. I have moved Tropical Storm Lee, Proxy server, and Hurricane Vince to the "Demote to regular articles" column because they are shorter than the GA length requirement of 3.5 kb (barely, but it's a fairly easy fix for those that feel strongly about doing a little bit of work to reach that minimum). · Tygrrr... 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese tea Ceremony now has sources; it is only too short now. That means it can become a GA.--Eptalon (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it still fails the length requirement for GAs so it must either be added to or be demoted to regular status (like the others that are too short). · Tygrrr... 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tygrrr took the incentive, and demoted the articles, as suggested. Changes to the above:

I have to disagree with the choice to have Chopstick keep its good article status. Isn't {{fact}} a form of a template that isn't allowed under the 8th requirement for good articles? If that's the case, then it doesn't meet all the requirements for good articles. Razorflame 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote what Tygrrr did. I myself tried to get a few fact out of the article; it is not that easy, though. As to fact, it is not explicitely listed; though generally, i would agree it fits the spirit of the rule. --Eptalon (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you just wrote what Tygrrr wrote. I was just expressing my disappointment that we keep an article with the {{fact}} template as a GA; obviously, it doesn't meet all the requirements. Razorflame 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose it for demotion, then? --Eptalon (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should propose it for demotion. Razorflame 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Razorflame, you and I both voted to keep it as a GA. I think I made a mistake in that. I think I was looking at the length and forgot about the fact templates. I would like to change my vote to demotion to regular article and do a quick demotion again since it doesn't rightly meet the criteria for GA status. If someone doesn't feel this automatic demotion is fair, we can put it up for another 2 weeks for demotion. · Tygrrr... 16:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also made a mistake in keeping in a GA. I didn't think about the fact that fact templates should count for the 8th requirement. I have already put it up for demotion, though. I think we should do a whole demotion on it because of this fact. Razorflame 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Before you demote it, can you quickly check if you find websites mentioning the missing info of the two fact places?--Eptalon (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up for the regular 2 week demotion process. This should give you 2 weeks to make it a better GA. This, I believe to be the right decision for this article. Razorflame 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template needs fixing..

Hello all,

The {{cite web}} might need fixing, in the following way: it has an accessdate field; which should contain the date in ISO8601 format (YYYY-mm-dd). This date will be linked; in our case, this mostly produces ugly red links. Using the monthname day, year; or day monthname, year format; with the components linked produces an extra set of braces ([[..]]). I think we have the following options here:

  • Do not link the accessdate at all.
  • If the accessdate is in ISO format, convert it to month day,year; with or without links.

Also pelase note that I currently have neither time nor skill to do this change.--Eptalon (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made. Curently converts both accessdate and archivedate to linked [day month] [year] format. This will cause problems where people did not follow the instructions about using ISO format and not linking the date for these two variables. -- Creol(talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) --Eptalon (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you realize there are now 600+ articles that need to be hand checked for new errors.. I got through the first 150 or so and have found two main patterns for errors:
  1. Invalid time: original access code in not in a date format the #time: command recognizes. These are usually prelinked dates that need to be shifted to unlinked ISO format. They are bold red errors and easy to spot.
  2. Double years: These result from using accessdate and access year together. It is a sneaky trick to fool the template into linking both month-day and year by setting accessdate to the month year and accessyear to the year. With the changes, if accessdate is just month day, it automatically changes it to day month Current year. This results in both 2008 and the original year being shown. These are a bit harder to notice when checking for problems on articles with lots of refs.
I am also shifting some regular refs to cite web refs if there is a problem already with the date. -- Creol(talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
770 total article for {{cite web}}, {{cite paper}} and {{cite web}} have been looked at for needed changes. All should be done but there are likely some stragglers. The date used for access date does not actually need to be in ISO format. Month day, year and day month year are both acceptable options to the template's use of the time function as long as they are not linked. Note that all instances of accessdate on these pages should not be automatically changed. {{cite news}} does not link the access date (actually I am not really certain why that date needs linked in any of these..) directly and is often times linked manually using which ever method the editor in question chooses (month day, year or day month year are most common). -- Creol(talk) 13:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a source for the article on the talk page but the article is protected. Could an admin put the source in the article for me?--BirdsArmy Talk 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the link as proposed; the article is currently semi-protected. Your account might be too new. In about a weeks time this will probably no longer be a problem. --Eptalon (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blak Tornado

There is an article called Blak Tornado created by an anonymous IP address user. This article doesn't really seem useful. Maybe we should get rid of it. --*JasPerTheKid (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not seem to be notable, only 3,490 Google hits, and some don't seem to be about this person. I'll RFD it in a minute.-- Lights  talk  15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. The current requirements for very good articles are here. They are the results of a discussion that stretched a few months. The deadline for the other category (Good articles, see here) is still open till tomorrow, Friday 8. I will nevertheless comment:
  • Length: 5 kb was agreed on; about a third of the VGAs (possibly more, have not fully checked) are too short (at 3-3.5k)
  • Expression/Bad Grammar/Quality: Articles should not need improvement, as outlined by a few templates (item 9 of the guideline)
  • Simple English: Some EnWP articles are nearly simple enough for here. The only way to enforce this would be to put a limit on (restrict) the vocabulary that can be used; While this is doable for an English learner who knows his 750 words, this is not enforceable for native, or near-native speakers. There is the additional problem that for some languages the Latin-based vocabulary is better (extinguish a fire); while others understand the phrasal verb combos better (put it out); I will not go into the detail here that make out, put up etc can have many different meanings, which may not really help comprehension (understanding).
  • We do have little influence on the number of editors there are; my current estimation is between 30 and 40 regular, high yield editors. Most of them are admins now.--Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English learner who knows his 750 words often doesn't know how to use them, and therefore isn't the most desirable editor.
  • I understand exactly what you mean by the Latin based vocab being preferable for many readers. The only way I survive Italy is to speak Latin English with a very bad Calabrian accent. (Don't let's go there....) The other point you make is that the short word isn't always the best known one. "Beautiful" (as an example) is in the vocabulary of all English-Speaking 6 yr olds and by the time they are 7 most of them can read it even if they can't spell it. It is instantly recognisable to most readers while "pretty" which sounds easier, is not.
  • Pity about your lack of "high yield" editors. I'm one, both here and at wikipedia and have the background experience to match. But my time is going to be limited from nnext week onward.
The big question is, we have a bit of an idea who we are aiming at, but how many people find Simple Wiki and use it?
(Some of which has nothing to do with this talk page...) Amandajm (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for now, our main focus should be to attract (drum up) more editors; If there are more editors in total, there will likely be more "high yield" ones; it is manly those editors we want to zero in on (address, target) But again we have little influence on how many new ones we get. As to the VGAs, I think we (the high yield editors) will be rather busy with fixing the current VGAs to be in line with the new guideline. Given how long this guideline took to become a guideline, I do (currently) not dare change it. --Eptalon (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought some more about the "Latin-based words" thing, and realise we are coming at it from different directions.
What you say is entirely true when dealing with ESL speakers from European backgrounds. Even those languages which are not Latin-based, like German, have absorbed words from church Latin and so on, and some knowledge of Latin is still part of the education of many people,, even if they haven't studied it formally.
A great deal of my experience has been with refugee migrants who have had scant knowledge of English until they began learning it "on the factory floor" sometimes with the benefit of a crash course in "English as a Second Language". They have learnt to speak English, as a language that has no direct connection with their Vietnamese, Arabic, Mandarin or Swahili. It is very different to an educated person with a good comprehension of their own European language, learning English. These people start with the spoken expressions that they hear every day.
"Don't go ter sleep on the job, getta move on, will yer! We gotta get this effin order out, terday not termorrer!" "I'll have a schooner fer me an a midi fer the missus." "Watchit or I'll bloody knock yer effin block off!" "Spee-Kinglish, why don't cher, yer effin wog bastard!"
For this sort of reason it would be good to know what our demographic is. Many Europeans with a good grasp of their own language and a dictionary can battle their way through a highly literate article if they are determined to extract the information. Kids, people with reading difficulties, people who understand only basic spoken English, and English readers with intellectual disability have very different reqirements- and then the best pitch is at basic spoken English, including those longer words that are part of the vocab of children. "Television, astronaut, dinosaur" etc are not easy but everybody knows them. There are a great number of words that fall into this category, and are included in the Simple English list. Amandajm (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) I have no idea about the academic background of our editors or readers; As to the languages, we are still pretty Europe-centric. This means most of our editors have English, a Latin-based (French, Spanish, Italian,...), a Germanic (German, Dutch, ..), or a Slavic (Russian-derived) language as their first language; there may be some with Arabic as their first language; that is for the high yield contributors. As to the "prototype user": He or she has some knowledge about something, but for whatever reason prefers to use the Simpler English over the more complex EnWP. I am aware that a (possibly uneducated) Thai or Korean (who has not even learnt his mother tongue well) will face other issues here than a Brazillian who has learnt Spanish before he had a go at English. And no, we do not adapt for young audiences. --Eptalon (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the page about how to write Simple English it says: First, think about your readers. Many readers of Simple English are people whose mother language is not English. Other readers may be young (they may be children) or have learning difficulties. The language is simple, but the ideas don't have to be. In the government organisation for which I worked for many years, devising, writing and delivering educational programs for everything from infants to the aged, and with a particular focus on recent immigrants, we aimed at a reading age of 12years. But in fact, it was necessary to deviate from this, because the needs of infant-school children, intellectually disabled young adults, and elderly migrants were very different. But at least we had some idea who we were dealing with. In this present situation, I can see the benefit in being flexible. Some articles are much more likely to be read by kids and others by more mature readers. Kids are more likely to access Tyrannosaurus Rex and adults are more likely to access Herpes simplex, so the requirements in terms of the complexity of content (for example) may be slightly different.

Amandajm (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles, last day

Hello all,

this is the last day of GA requirements discussion (discussion here, current requirements).

Items still open:

  • Size (no size limit, to 5k, currently discussing 3-4k)
  • Percentage of votes in support for promotion (65% or 70%; basic question: should an article with 6 votes and 2 opposes be made a good article).

We are almost there... --Eptalon (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated all the points to show where consensus is going at the moment. There is still some time to come and discuss and express your opinions. Things can change from my update very quickly, nothing is yet set in stone. We'd love to hear from people even if they haven't participated in the first 2 months of the process. It's never to late to have an opinion, so come share what you think! :-) · Tygrrr... 15:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles is now a guideline

Hello, and thank you to all who contributed. The delay has passed, and I made the requirements for good articles into a guideline. Please have a look at the guideline, recent changes include:

  • Minimum length 3.5kb; removed the reference to screens (also with VGAs), since we no longer know what we based that screen on
  • To be promoted, a good article needs 70% support, with a minimum of 5 votes; this means articles with 5 or 6 votes can still be promoted with one oppose vote, with 7 or 8 votes with two oppose votes, and with 9 or 10 votes with 3 oppose votes.

This also means that we can start the promotion process for good articles. We still need to go over all the VGAs, and identify which of them do not meet the current VGA standard. Which would mean the two week delay for fixing VGAs to again meet the standard would start now for the ten already discovered.

Someone mentioned a tool that could print out nice statistics about articles; it would be worth mentioning that again, so it can be added to the proposed demotions page. --Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the same note, I have just unfrozen the process for demoting articles, as the requirements for GA's has been decided. Just thought that I would let everyone here know that. Razorflame 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good Article?

Hello All... I have recenlty put Moulin Rouge! up to be a GA. Here is the place to vote for it and say what you think  : - ) IuseRosary (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article demotion..

Since the demotion process has now also been unfrozen, I want to add a few comments about it:

  • Many editors have worked quite a few hours to get their articles to comply with the old "Very good article criteria"
  • After this, there was a common review process, and the articles were found "ready for the tag"

Now demoting such an article is a matter of minutes (replace a tag); I would however rather go for another procedure:

  • First identify all articles that do no longer meet the VGA criteria
  • Over a period of two weeks, these articles will be fixed to meet the criteria again; this is done as a "community effort" (the whole community focuses on it).
  • There will be some articles which will be too hard to fix, these must be demoted (if possible to Good Article standard); most will have been fixed, and can keep their status.

For this reason, please think twice before you support a VGA being demoted, rather than spending 10 minures fixing what is amiss. --Eptalon (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come...

... I have to upload images from the commons? Why cannot I upload them here? On English Wikipedia, Swedish and many more you can upload images on that site, not the commons. Why, please? I'd like to upload images to here so I don't make 1,000,000,000,000 accounts for only a few purposes. Thanks. --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 22:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community decided long ago that images must come from commons and thus meet all of commons' rules regarding free use. This meant that this smaller community did not have to waste time checking out the licenses and copyright status of every image. --Bärliner 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just been policy here for a while now. It is meant as a control so that we don't have people uploading images that they aren't supposed to. If we allowed image uploads, then we would have to have administrators check over each and every picture that is uploaded to make sure that they are appropriate and are under free licenses. Frankly, that would put a lot of strain on lots of people, and since we are a small community, that strain could potentially become a big problem. Razorflame 22:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete the pictures that are not free. There are many administrators here. People still upload images here anyway. --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very few are uploaded, and all can be deleted. Your idea means time has to be wasted checking out the copyright status internationally. Not as easy as it sounds.--Bärliner 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other main reason why we did it was to make our content as reusable as possible. "Fair use" laws don't apply in many countries, so it massively restricts redistribution of our content onto other websites or in printed form. Archer7 - talk 12:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "create an account"

I was on the login page a moment ago, and wondered whether the phrase "Create an account" was simple enough. Couldn't it be "Make an account" or "Get an account?" We already have "Talk" instead of "Discuss," and "Change" instead of "Edit." Just a thought. Graymornings (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Userlogin, MediaWiki:Nologinlink, MediaWiki:Accountcreated, MediaWiki:Accountcreatedtext and MediaWiki:Createaccount (and optionally MediaWiki:Nocookiesnew, MediaWiki:Nosuchuser, MediaWiki:Acct_creation_throttle_hit and a couple more!) should be changed by an admin. I'm not changing them now, because I think we should first decide what to put there. I support "Get an account" and "Get account". - Huji reply 08:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "create" is really that complicated. "Get" also implies that you're fetching something, rather than making it, but maybe I'm just being picky about it. Personally I have no problem with "create". Archer7 - talk 12:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a non-native speaker, so probably my English is not as good. If you get a cold, you don't really fetch it, do you? - Otherwise what about make? --Eptalon (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Make" would probably be better, but it was just my first impression about "get", it might not cause any problems. Archer7 - talk 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should stick the 'create' I have just looked up the words for 'create', 'get' and 'make' in most major european languages as well as some major non -european language. From this, I have noticed that our word, 'create' is much closer to their words for create than the corrolation between our and their words for 'get' and 'make'. So, Keeping it as 'create' will make it easier for foreign people to understand rather than 'make' or get'IuseRosary (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Get", in my opinion, has the least similarities between different languages. "Make" and "Create" are both quite similar between dialects.
--Gwib -(talk)- 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get, when I first learned the word means fetch. Sort of like go get me a beer. Create is simple to me. Make is pretty simple too. --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - "get" is a little misleading. I think that "make" is better, though - it would probably be learned before the word "create." I've been learning Japanese and Russian, and I have learned the word "make" in both languages, but "create" still eludes me. Graymornings (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a tool that can find unsimplified articles so we can simplify them? --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those that have been tagged, with {{complex}} are listed in Category:Complex pages --Eptalon (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if somebody doesn't post complex? --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are looking at finding "untagged" pages that are possibly hard to understand, this becomes difficult. Because if you wanted to write a bot that could recognise these, what would the bot have to look at? - How long the sentences are? The average length of a word? - How different the article is, from say, the EnWP one if it exists? - Automating this task is probably not easy. If you wanted good results, you would need to add something like machine learning ability; which means you will sooner or later end up with an Bayesian network. Which means loads and loads of calculation (most of the for probabililties). But the first step would be to determine what it is, that makes an article complex.--Eptalon (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System of a Down Article

System of a Down

Andy Khachaturian did not leave System of a Down because he wanted to lead the band.

He left because a hand injury.

Just wanted to clear that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Can you fix the respective article, please. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I know anonymous users here can create articles, like many other wikis. But that is causing a disruptive epidemic. Sometimes admins may not be on hand, and now I know that they're are not as many admins as anons. That's practically 20:1,000,000+ on a radical status. Some anons are helpful, I am aware. But I think, like EN, we should have anons only edit articles. They should not create pages because this nonsense epidemic of creating pages is wasting our time. Frankly I find registered users a fairer game. Anons you have to remember and they lie and the whole blah-blah-blah. Because in my view, registered users, who are much more helpful just get a userpage, a nice little name and the power to move. Even some users per example like Oysterguitarist don't have userpages. Why should anons, basically the troublemakers, get only a little less restriction the registered users? I think it'd be a good idea if we could have a policy where you have to have an account to create articles. --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have not found that a problem. At the moment there are over 20 Admins, one of them is almost always around. Users can mark nonsense pages for deletion, with {{qd}} (Quick delete) or {{pdel}} (normal, discussed deletion). Pages will then be deleted when the next Admin comes along. --Eptalon (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But when we get more vandal sprees, more popular... do you wanna just prevent that now? --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Eptalon has stated, we have not found this to be a problem. We can easily control the amount of vandalism that occurred through page creation because of the fact that there just isn't a whole lot of it. As to the fact of your statement, it isn't when now. We will always be getting more administrators as time goes on, and as we get more page creation vandals, so shall we get more administrators to deal with the increase in page creation vandals, so all in all, these reasons state that IP's should be allowed to create pages. Also, not every IP address is a vandal. If we prevent honest IP addresses from creating pages, then in the end, we lose out on many valuable editors adding their pages to this site. Sure, some of these articles that they add aren't very grammatically correct, but that's just the point of a Wikipedia, people can fix articles that people create to make them more suitable to this Wikipedia. Also, I think that it would be against the basic rules of a Wikipedia to not allow IP addresses to create new pages because it would be limiting the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia. So therefore, I do not think that this will happen, ever. Razorflame 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it is not like every named user can realy be trusted either. Long time return vandals like KA never get the hint and keep coming back time and again with a new name and persona. IPs are not the only issue. -- Creol(talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not every admin is trustworthy either... --Gwib -(talk)- 15:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KA never created an account here... The admin was on en... --Bianca (talk to Bianca) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VGA demotion..

Hello all,

I have gone over the current VGAs, and i think we pretty much have the problem cases listed on WP:DEMOTE now. The problem cases can broadly be classified into the following:

  • Article is too short, or sections like "other websites" are too big compared to the rest of the article
  • Article is not comprehensive. That means things can still be added to the article to cover all aspects of the subject. We really need to think what we should do with cases like Pope John Paul II (current VGA, no redlinks, but possibly not comprehensive)
  • Can Lists of things be VGAs? (in other words can a list of hurricanes of some geographical region be comprehensive?)

I therefore invite all of you to help improve the articles listed on the page cited. The idea would be to keep as many VGAs as possible, and to demote the rest, if possible to Good Article status. --Eptalon (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, its looks like all of the current VGAs are being demoted for whatever reasons. Well so much for four months and 3000+ edits trying to make a dozen VGAs and ending up to here. --§ Snake311 (click here to chat) 04:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New "new changes" header

I'm kinda bored today and was playing around with a possibility for a new header for the New changes page. This is what we have currently and this is what I've come up with (I made my example over at Simple English Wiktionary). Things like colors, size and alignment can be tweaked. I wanted the font size to be 90% like it is currently but for some reason everything is bolded and it just looks kind of tacky at 90%. If someone can figure out how to fix the bolding problem, that'd be cool. We don't have to switch to my proposal but I thought I'd see if there was any support for a change. · Tygrrr... 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should maybe be a tad more colourful. I know people could think that this is patronizing, to have colours to make things "easier to understand", but our homepage is very colourful. Different coloured borders and backgrounds everywhere.
If we can get maybe a few different "hues" on the bars (and not all in bold) I think it'd be lovely! --Gwib -(talk)- 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely be for varying shades of one color. I almost did it in greens but thought it'd be simpler to do it in grey and then pick an alternate color later if people want something else. The bold thing bothers me but I actually kind of like how it looks at 80%. Other wikis I've seen have this particular header in quite a small font. [1] [2] · Tygrrr... 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good, but definitely needs a border around it or things could get confusing (and colours, lots of colours). --Gwib -(talk)- 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there needs to be a bit of color to it. I like it otherwise. Good work on it! Razorflame 19:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple fix for the bolding problem - quit forcing it to display the text as a header. By default (common.css) heading text is font-weight:bold. The problem with the table is that all cells are set as headers ( ! instead of | ). Changing them back to normal cells clears the forced bold and center. I made the changes to the link above for you (and put it back to 90%). -- Creol(talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks! Can't believe I couldn't figure that out... I've created a version for here since it seems there's some interest. A couple versions: classic grey (80%), green (80%) and green (90%). · Tygrrr... 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blue is my favorite colour, so I'm likely to be biased for it. But with the versions you've posted here, I'm rather partial to this one myself. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turquoise (90%). An option for 85%. I like it because you can still see the bolding vs. not (which you can't do at 80%), but it doesn't take up quite so much space as 90% (which IMO is huge). · Tygrrr... 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right idea, but it hurts my eyes. I think you should stick to a less intrusive color palette, such as the blues used here (after you click "show"). нмŵוτнτ 03:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the classic gray looks best, in my opinion. All that green makes me feel a little dizzy. :) --§ Snake311 (click here to chat) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally of the opinion that we should stay away from the colors used on the nav boxes in articles but I can do an example with that color scheme just to see what we think. · Tygrrr... 14:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox colors (violet and grey) · Tygrrr... 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. It's not intrusive and is aesthetically pleasing. нмŵוτнτ 19:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Light blue. · Tygrrr... 20:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why aren't there any portals on Simple? BirdsArmy (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few (read 30-50) regular contributors that contribute many articles; There are thereofre simply not enogh people to keep a "portal" going. Also, how would you bring the term "portal" into simple English? --Eptalon (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We replaced it with "gateway" for the Schools project. I think we should be pretty restrictive on portals though, I can't really see the need for most things. Archer7 - talk 13:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every thing starts from a single step.I think 20 devoting individuals are enough for running a portal .I'll also help(though a quite busy person i am).Also there should be some "help desk" also.There is always a need of improvement.So bubble up guys! cheers,--*ha with munifecence (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20 individuals might be enough for one portal, but that is about half of our regular contributors!--Bärliner 18:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]