Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 35

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should Simple English give Simple descriptions?

Someone found the [English Wikipedia's Hinduism] article difficult to read and understand, so I told them about the simple English Hinduism page. The problem is the Simple English page is also difficult to understand. I think it should be changed, but I don't know whether:

  • The Simple English article should describe the basic terms clearly. This would be good for a child or someone who did not know anything about the subject. This would not be good for someone who wanted to know a lot about the subject but who did not know English well.


  • The Simple English article should try to describe detailed topics using simpler language. This would be good for someone who did not know English well, but who wanted to know a lot about the subject. This would be good for a child or someone who did not know anything about the subject.

Please let me know what we should do. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes).

We use the second system. Our target audience is ESL (English as a Second Language) learners, translators, and to some extent, children. We try to explain topics in as much detail as possible, while using simple language. Archer7 - talk 09:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong suspicion that this user is a sock of someone but I can't tell who. Any opinions? Thank you, SwirlBoy39 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who it is, but it's a sockpuppet for sure. Majorly talk 02:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be IuseRosary. Chenzw  Talk  02:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably him, or just a troll Oysterguitarist 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already brought this up over on the WP:AN. A checkuser on this user didn't reveal any clear information. Can't say if its him on not. (The last information was according to Creol over on WP:RFCU.) Cheers, Razorflame 02:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get, why their IP's aren't just blocked? They're obvious vandals, but I'm guessing it's policy. 'sigh' -- ApEtSIG 04:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American Eagle, if you're asking why we don't just block IuseRosary's IP, it's a little more complicated than that - they use many IPs. If you're asking why we didn't just block QuotemeSilly immediately, it's because we've been wrong before and we try not to go on instinct alone. I've now blocked the user after it became obvious that they're a vandal (adding stuff about people's genitals to the proposed demotions page etc - see their edits). I'm 90% sure it's IuR from the editing style. Archer7 - talk 10:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really got into Ben LuR's situation much, except a little with OYU4Me, so I never knew the were so large - until the above section and their blocking. You'd just think that they'd just get a grip - and a life. Thanks for explaining that to me. Cheers -- ApEtSIG 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They won't just get a grip. In fact, I highly doubt that we will ever be able to have a break from those two anytime in the future. Razorflame 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't worry, life expectancy is only about 70... -- America alk 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Could somebody here tell me what Charles Spurgeon needs before it could become a VGA? I have overhauled the article several times, but I don't see what else it needs. Does it need more references, simplification, comprehension? Answers? Thanks -- ApEtSIG 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone looking for something to do?

Anyone up for a challenge or bored and looking for a target to work on? This users contributions are in need of being heavily tended to. Between cleanup and formatting, to verification and a huge amount of NPOV editing, there is a lot of work need to be done to a majority of the edits. Help from anyone with some knowledge of the Kashmir region of Pakistan/India would be greatly appreciated as this seems to be strongly biased from a Pakistani POV on the subject (mainly the Indian controlled section of the region). Articles such as for the city of Bhadrawahi definitely need help especially since our single link to the name and the first few pages of Google hits lists it as a language and not a place to live although there is a Bhadrawati but it is in central India, not northern... Finding the "most commonly used English name" for a lot of their new articles could prove to be a challenge. -- Creol(talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the stuff in my sandbox to that for simplifying in case you don't want to do the above.--   ChristianMan16  17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear for many of the articles' (especially cleaning NPOV) checks will require someone with a background around there (India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh,..).--Eptalon (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the Category:Kashmir, most of this editor's articles will fall into it. The few I have seen reveal a (somewhat militant?) pro-Pakistan position. It would really be good if people who have better knowledge on the whole Kashmir conflict than me could help here. Ideally we want moderated people who can either describe the Indian or Pakistani (or Chinese) situation well. It it clear that tensions are still high in a conflict that has lasted for half a century at least; and where at least two of the three parties involved now have atomic weapons. Given that we don't have an endless supply of such editors, we could also look at perhaps telling that editor that his contributions are very welcome, but that they should start by taking less extreme positions. It might well be that all of Kashmir should rightfully belong to one of the three states. Even then, mentioning that the other two have claimed part of it should not be too hard to do.--Eptalon (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to help you clear the NPOV from these articles, but I am afraid that I don't have much knowledge on the Kashmir incident, so I don't think that my edits would be helpful. Cheers, Razorflame 22:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge is also very limited, but most of the articles have counterparts at EnWP (or other wikis to draw from). A first step might be to tone down the language; What I am saying is that in the long run we will need people who know the situation better. This might really be a valuable editor, if they can be convinced to do more balanced edits. --Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Meta

Just so we can say SEWP was told - Global Upsurp Policy - Meta --  Da Punk '95  talk  05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tags

Hello. I am a new user here at Simple English Wikipedia, but I am an experienced editor on another wikipedia. I was wondering where a list of deletion tags were. I can't seems to find any. I'd gladly like to know. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion. --Gwib -(talk)- 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant tags like {{nonsense}}. I'd like to see a list of some sort of those. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Discussed_deletion and Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#Quick_deletion. --Gwib -(talk)- 09:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the quick deletion was what I was looking for. Thanks. -- RyanCross (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Peer Review

Hello, I have changed Peer Review to have sections for the month the request started (sometimes whern there was the last comment). I suggest we keep at most 2 months / 15 articles (whatever is less) there, to limit the dust-collection somewhat. I have also archived requests that date before February of this year (or where there was no interaction since then). --Eptalon (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency: Read STAT!

Grawp has found a way to make us miserable again. He came into a test wiki I am a part of and hacked my account. He then hacked Alexfusco5's account. If you see anything suspicious from my account block it immediately. Thank you. SwirlBoy39 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More test wiki woes? Don't forget to change your password. Microchip 09:43, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc

Image hosting for this Wikipedia

I now we don't allow image uploads but I need to upload a free use image to use on my user page but Commons wont let me cause it "Violates" their policy located COM:SCOPE so the reason I come to y'all is for the communities permission to temporarily upload one image to our server for me to test with. I can assure you it free use.. to prove it to you it's basically the same thing as the ChristianMan16 logo on my user page except smaller and it says User. Opinions?--   ChristianMan16  21:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored Image:Cooltext91482114.png on Commons. I explained on the deleting admin's talkpage, and in the deletion log. Maxim (talk | editor review) 21:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--   ChristianMan16  22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I just have a suggestion that may help users here. I'm open for any support or opposes to my suggestion. As most of you probably know (I hope), Wikipedia has this Adoption/Mentoring program. I was wondering if we should have something similar to it to help out and mentor users who don't know much about Simple english, policies, etc. Good idea? Oh, and it won't be so complicated as the one on wikipedia. Just a simple one would do. I'll create it if requested, and if it doesn't look like I did well, then I'll take any other suggestion to fix it.-- RyanCross (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After mulling this over, I have come to this conclusion: I do not believe that we are an active enough Wikipedia to sustain this idea at this time. While I know your intentions with this idea are good, to tell you the truth, we just don't get enough new editors on this Wikipedia to be able to support this idea at this time. Cheers, Razorflame 08:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rethinking that, I guess this really isn't an active wiki to do that now. I guess for now, if someone needs mentoring about this wiki, they'll just do it by themselves like what your doing Razorflame, except your admin coaching. No need for a special page for now. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not jump to conclusions just yet :). Let us wait and see what some of the other active users on this site say about this. Cheers, Razorflame 09:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Icons

I was wondering if there was a list here of image icons. I was planning to redesign my user page, but I would like to use some icons for it. -- RyanCross (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found them on my own. But a few more lists would be help ful to me. -- RyanCross (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header Edits

How do we change the name of a heading or title? Just curious. Prime Contributer (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the title of pages? -- RyanCross (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Prime Contributer (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If your an autoconfirmed user, you should see a "move" tab at the top of the page your editing. Click on that tab and then follow the directions that folllows. If your not an autoconfirmed user (users who have been here less than 4 days), than you can't move a page until you have been here for 4 days. -- RyanCross (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll try it out. I have been here for more than four days. Prime Contributer (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! ;) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Page

Some users are writing at this page's talk page. Can an admin please move it. Prime Contributer (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It shouldn't be moved. Users can ask for help here, but users can ask for improvements on this page on this pages talk page. It's impossible to move it anyone. A better word would be to "redirect" it to this page. But no, we shouldn't do that. -- RyanCross (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Prime Contributer (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello all,

I am aware that the conflict about Kashmir has probably gone on for too long. In any case, we will not be able to solve it. All we can do is look that our articles are as unbiased as they can be. I therefore think we should look to get editors who know the situation better than we do. These will likely be found on English-language, but mostly on Pakistani-, Indian- and Chinese-language wikipedias. I would therefore ask for a beacon of light to be sent to those projects. Our problem is not one of language - even if the articles are written very poorly, improving them is not the problem. The basic problem that we have is one of understanding the situation. I have read that the Shiazen glacier is occupied by India (Pakistani-troops are in the valley below the glacier). With my knowledge I have no idea of whether this glacier should belong to India, or to Pakistan, or be shared between the two.

What we need are people that know at least one side of the situation. Ideally, those can then work together (or is it unimaginable that a moderated Indian works with a moderated Pakistani to try to get the information right? - I don't know, and I can't tell, therefore my call for help.

So if you know any people who could help, please tell them. - Again this is not about language; this is about getting the facts right.--Eptalon (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality or quantity?

How much does Simple value stubs? I'm at a cross-roads whether to pursue the List of Pokémon page or not. I could create ~460 stubs, but if there isn't a group of interested Pokémon fans that want to keep it up, I see little purpose in that. A Link to the Past has come over, which is excellent as he's created a dozen stubs that I will be happy to work on (seems much easier to work on article after they've been created), but...that's it. Nobody else has expressed interest over from the English Wikipedia Pokémon WikiProject.

I could also go on a rampage and create a ton of stubs (diving into Wikipedia's category system has yielded and impressive comprehensiveness in terms of article count), but I feel like I should make the existing ones more useful first. Should I focus on quantity, or quality? Cassandra 20:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask like that please focus on quality. There is only limited usefulness of stubs in the present stage of our wiki.--Cethegus (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are fine and useful, just don't make it "NAME is a character in Pokémon. {{stub}} [[Category:Characters in Pokémon]]" Only about 300 articles (give or take, not sure) here are non-stubs. So does that mean we should delete them? No. They are useful, but they need more length and information than the above. Stubs are useful, but try to include some length and quality into the article. Cheers -- America alk 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video game assessment scale

I'm proposing that there be a scale for video games - both in their quality (ie, Stub, Start, B, A, GA, VG) and in their priority to improve (ie, low, mid, high, top). I know the project has only two members at the moment, but interest is growing slowly, and I'm certain it will soon be big enough to warrant it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, it seems that classes are often rejected by the community. We currently have Stub class, GA class and VGA class. There's no A, B or Start classes. However, I soon will be proposing my template for the articles every Wiki should have.
More info can be found here.Microchip 07:40, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc

Biography of living people

Howdy, folks. I am curious to know how we here at Simple deal with biographies of living people. I know over at the en.wp they have some pretty strict policies and a recent ArbCom ruling making it even stricter. I tried to find some guidelines/policies here, but I came up a little bit blank, so I decided to come to ST to ask about it. Well, there ya have it. Cheers! Bstone (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have one, but i think it's just general notability. Over at en-wikipedia, they have WP:BIO. Here, we just make sure articles are notable. Tell me if I'm wrong. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general practice, if we do not have a specific policy for something, we tend to use the en:wp policy as a guideline until a policy can be simplified and approved by the community. Because of our size, a lot of the policies needed elsewhere are rarely ever needed here so little time is spend creating a policy which may only come into play a handful of times. With such a small community of regular editors, most times it is easier to just deal with problems as they occur rather than spending months developing policies for hundreds of different situations which may never occur. -- Creol(talk) 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does mean you should follow the policy of en:WP here as well, especially concerning privacy of details that are not of public interest in the context of notability of the person. --Cethegus (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that sounds fine to me. Do you all think it might be a good idea to create a WP:BLP page here and have a note on it saying we follow the en.wp as a guideline? It might be helpful, at least in preventing this question from being asked again. Bstone (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and created the page here. Please let me know what you think and edit mercilessly. Bstone (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and begun a discussion on the talk page of the proposal, here. Bstone (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New guideline

Discuss? Microchip 17:11, Tuesday, June 17 2008 Utc

Are you sure we need to "codify" this for the smallish community that we are? --Eptalon (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Codify? Microchip 08:43, Wednesday, June 18 2008 Utc
By creating a gudeline (or a policy) we say that the behaviour outlined in that guideline or policy is a standard way to act. The problem is that here at simple, we are well under 100 people regularly editing. Many of the guidelines or policies of EnWP are there because they are so many; In other words, they need such rules or gidelines to operate. Let's take the example of conlfict resolution; EnWP has special committees to resolve conflicts, over here if there is an open conflict between two (or more) editors it can probably be solved by a third editor who listens to both sides and then decides. We do not need a committee to resolve conflicts - we are simply too few, and real conflicts are rare. Therefore we do not have a "guideline" that says how ot resolve conflicts. If there is a conflict, someone will now see this new guideline; they will then look at EnWP, and see the myriad of pages dealing with conflict resolution, that there are committees. Certain editors (who must meet specific requirements) can be elected to the committees; if there is a conflict it is then brought before the committee (that decides one way or another). This simply does not apply here (as many other policies don't). Therefore before trying to make such a guideline, we should really think whether we need it.--Eptalon (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My theory is that, as many of the WP:ST topics refer people to various en policies, we may as well have something to go with it. Microchip 10:12, Wednesday, June 18 2008 Utc
I am very uneasy with this guideline. I haven't been editing on Simple Wikipedia for very long, but it looks like the encyclopedia has been working well without this. My feeling is looking at similar pages or using common sense should used when there isn't a rule. Also English Wikipedia isn't written in simple terms. Since one sort of person Simple English Wikipedia is aimed for is people learning English, editors may be more familiar with other languages, so maybe "other Wikipedias" would be better, as it only a guideline after all and it doesn't matter if the other Wikipedias say slightly different things.
I don't know if I am alone on this, but if the only reason someone gave me for a rule was that it was on English Wikipedia, then I would eventually stop editing. I am on this Wikipedia because I like the challenge of writing Simple English articles, and that there aren't all the complex, confusing rules and arguments that are on English Wikipedia. Simple Wikipedia uses Simple English and really it needs a minimal, simple set of rules that can be written in this language.
I think we should be carefully to keep some distance between English Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia as I already see things are not Simple English. As an example, what is "disambiguation" in simple terms. It is used on hundreds of pages, but is not Simple English and is a word that even confuses some native English speakers. Hippopotamus (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New warning templates

I was going to create a few vandalism warning templates, but I just wanted the community's opinions on the idea of it. I was thinking something like this, this, this, and this? Of course it will be simplified and copyedited. It basically should be used when general vandalism occurs, not test edits when using {{test}}. Thoughts? -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, have you seen the Vandal Warner gadget you can turn on in your settings/prefs? You can easily and quickly warn vandals. Microchip 10:14, Thursday, June 19 2008 Utc
I've seen it, yes. I'm using it. And another side note, User:JurgenG said it was a good idea in this reply to my comment. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, be bold! And list it here. Chenzw  Talk  09:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, what am I thinking. I should always be bold. :P I'll go right ahead. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Feel free to tweak them if needed. Thanks, Ryan†Cross (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i'd like to let Simple Wiki know that "maks" should be "makes".

speed]]". There are many wikis in the internet now, the best wikis are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which '"maks" Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and other important wikis.

Where I have put quotes around the incorrect text & put formatting on to it so it stands out, I'd like Simple Wikipedia to know that they made a mistake on the WIKI page of Simple Wikipedia.

@@@@++++ adam from English Wikipedia. ++++@@@@

Use of explicit images?

Originally posted at WT:IUP, moved by mc8 Does the English Wikipedia policy "Wikipedia is not censored" apply in Simple Wikipedia? I note that the policy "Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles" states that "Other readers [of Simple English Wikipedia] may be young (they may be children)". If that is the case, should explicit images (such as the one at "Erection") be avoided? I don't have a problem with such images personally, but wonder if there is a usage policy on this. I've been updating the articles "Ejaculation" and "Sex organ" and have generally tried to avoid such images in case they're regarded as inappropriate. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 23:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a big long discussion here about it at one point, but there isn't much consensus it seems. I'm moving this over to Simple Talk in order to get a better response. Microchip 17:13, Friday, June 20 2008 Utc
Left Arrow The comments that were in this section have been moved to a different place at Wikipedia:Simple Talk. Left Arrow
The overall consensus was to keep the original policy of "Wikipedia is not censored". It's not just in that section you linked to, the starting point was here. Archer7 - talk 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should discuss this more...personally. I'm with Truth.--   ChristianMan16  18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not (and should never be) censored. I have heard mention of "spoiler" style notices for articles with explicit images - perhaps a "show" function could be incorporated, but let us all remember this is an encyclopaedia and regardless that it's Simple English, we still need to stick to facts. And when that requires an explicit image, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Argh, we have literally discussed this to death, so we are flogging a dead horse here to use a graphic phrase. Personally, I have rather liberal views on the subject:

  • Images are a means of illustrating a concept. Images that are there only to shock (or to arouse, in the case of pornography) should be removed or replaced. In that way, the image of a womans breast on the respective page is ok.
  • Parents are responsible for their children; there are various options there to filter out unwanted images/content. The filtering (by various methods) is therefore in the responsibility of those parents that say that certain types of content are unsuitable for their children. Conversely, people who want to see such illustrations should not be kept from doing so.
  • Almost all children have seen the other sex nude by age 8-10, probably earlier. Therefore, images that show nude people (or parts of nude people) are fine, as long as they are not linked to pornography.
  • There are many works of art (paintings, sculptures, frescoes, some photographies, other installations) that show (partially nude) people. These count as works of art and are fine.
  • As I pointed out in a (rather provocative) statement in the discussion linked above, we are potentially doing more harm by withholding information on contraception, sexually transmitted diseases etc. A person with an (unwanted) teenage pregnancy basically has had her life ruined.
  • Children are bound to find out about the pleasures and dangers of sex; in my opinion, there is no harm done if 8 year olds know that (if they really ask).

See en:Wikipedia:Options to not see an image for hints on hiding images.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty; Ch.2, p. 24

These are of course only my own opinions. --Eptalon (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it all turns on what one considers to be "required" by an article. That is quite a strict criterion. In one sense, images are usually not "required" – the article's subject can usually be described in words alone, unless it is something that can be understood much better with the aid of visuals. As you can see from the newly-unstubbed version of "Ejaculation", I've avoided using any explicit images. (I thought I should do so as I didn't know what the policy was.) A prior version of the article contained a video taken from the English Wikipedia article of a man ejaculating, which led to at least one complaint on the Simple talk page (now archived). Did the video make the article clearer? Possibly. Was it "required" for the article? Probably not. I think the issues that need clarification are these:
  • Since children are expressly stated to be a target audience of Simple Wikipedia, should the English Wikipedia policy "Wikipedia is not censored" be modified in its application to Simple Wikipedia where it involves the use of sexually-explicit images and videos?
  • If not, should Simple's image use policy be updated to require the use of some sort of "Show" function suggested by Rambling Man, which I take to be a device that masks an image until a "Show" link is clicked. (I think, though, that the utility of such a device is questionable: if an image is inappropriate for children, then arguably it shouldn't be in the article at all. Masking it with a "Show" function only avoids readers being shocked by images if they happen to visit the article "by chance", or if their parent is standing behind them and says, "You can read this article for your homework but don't you dare click on 'Show'!")
If there is no consensus on the matter, the image use policy should be updated to mention that point so that the matter doesn't need to be endlessly debated. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am completely mistaken, that show function is given in the link Options not to see an Image above. Also, please keep in mind that children have a very vivid imagination; in that way, it may be better to show an image than to not show one.--Eptalon (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a look at "Options not to see an image". It doesn't say anything about the "Show" function, unfortunately. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Eptalon's comments, since that children are a target audience of Simple Wikipedia, perhaps the Main Page should contain a clear link to "Options not to see an image" so parents can figure out how to hide images. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug. We have had these discussions before. And nothing seems to work. I agree that for the sake of the article, so minor or partial nudity is necessary. But that is as far as it should go. Some things should be kept, but we should not be known as a porn shop. But, for example, this edit had a completely explicit image that had no purpose and was just there for pleasure. I think that we should be toned down as far as possible, and not have such explicit things such as that on en:Pornography has, that is not needed, but we should also strive to be complete. And the comment above is very good. Cheers -- America alk 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TO keep you occupied while we are discussing, there is a local version of how to not display images at WP:NOIMAGE. At the moment is mostly a copy of the enWP page. It needs to be simplified, and the links need to be fixed.--Eptalon (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is creepy. I did the NOIMAGE thing and it blocks ALL images from viewing. Is there a way to select images or have them part of a list here? -- America alk 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that people try to apply English Wikipedia policy her at Simple English Wikipedia. We are a completely from enWP...and people should start stating as so. As for WP:NOIMAGE I saw nothing against a show picture function. We need to understand that Internet explorers do not always block unwanted stuff no matter how hard you try and that is our problem. And while we may not be censored we should refrain from using those kind of images as much as possible.--   ChristianMan16  19:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of us will want to see images - obliging us to click show image every time is counterproductive. -- That NoIMAGE page describes how to hide (certain, or all) images in wikipedia.
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Ch.2, p.23

Again, I only speak for myself --Eptalon (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please quoting people outside the wiki it's not productive.It's stuff like Explicit images that has gotten this website banned from Polk County Public Schools (Florida) servers.--   ChristianMan16  20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the specific images (or articles that contained them)? --Eptalon (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Image AmericanEagle linked to above (has since been replaced), showed a naked Christy Thurlington (from the side); this image she did for PETA was the only free image available at the time (at least I could find). Some hints of breasts were visible. This was made for a big poster, I assume it was hanging around in quite a few Cities. For references this was the version with the PETA image. --Eptalon (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my point was that it was sexual and that is where we should draw the line. The current image shows who she is and what she looks like, but the old one was just for the pleasure of the corrupted mind. That was my point. Thanks -- America alk 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with looking at guidelines that have already been developed at English Wikipedia and other projects as this can save having to reinvent the wheel. However, such policies need to be evaluated to determine if they are in line with Simple Wikipedia's goals – are these stated anywhere? As regards the use of explicit images, if there is no general prohibition of them on this project, I would say the general principle should be whether they add value to articles. This is a matter that has to be resolved on an article-by-article basis. Clearly, in the Christy Turlington example, it was not necessary to use the rather suggestive image of her. The image could have been cropped to show just her face, or the infobox could have been left blank until a better image turned up. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :) -- America alk 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored, or main group are also people who learn English as a Second Language - not necessarily children. If you look at PETA most of their momentum they get through provocation; I also do not consider said image to be particularly bad; It shows a naked woman laterally; at some point, breasts are visible (but obscured in shadows) - As it was the only free image available at the time, I took it (rather than having no image at all). I am not into image-editing at all, therefore no cropping. If you haven't already, please read the discussions linked to above (Yes, I know, it's a lot). I'll stop flogging now. The horse is already dead. --Eptalon (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be away for about a week, but when I get back I think I'll try and draft an update to the image use policy that provides guidance to editors on the use of sexually explicit images. I'll post the draft here for further discussion. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokemon...

Hello all,

About a week ago, I closed the List of Pokemon RFD here with a keep; but with the option of quick-deleting the list (and perhaps related articles) later on, if it was not obvious the items were being worked on. After a comment on my talk page (here it looks like that except for A link to the Past. It however looks like those participating lack the knolwedge to achieve the task.

It is now June 21; On June 28 (next Staturday), I think the following should be done:

  • QD the List, and the 31 related species articles (we do not have the resources or the knowledge to write over 450 stubs on a subject of limited interest).
  • Change the article Pokémon to include the rest of the relevant info; it will be the only trace of pokemon left here; perhaps link the games if you feel they are notable enough to have their own article.

Please disagee if you think this is a bad idea.--Eptalon (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should split the list into smaller lists, like what enWP does. Each section of the list will have a brief description of each Pokemon. The species articles will be deleted. Chenzw  Talk  10:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much the knowledge, just a lack of interest. The games are most definitely notable and I will work on those. Cassandra 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have quick deleted the List, as announced; there currently is an RFD for the 31 remaining Pokémon monsters; Perhaps we could also group them in some way...--Eptalon (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi everybody... greetings from Turkey National Football Team... did you see Turkey vs Croatia EURO 2008 match in last night? It was incredible, wonderfull...-- (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hello? What was the score? Microchip 11:30, Saturday, June 21 2008 Utc
Switzerland went out with a bang! I'm so pleased. --Gwib -(talk)- 11:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia.... oh well. :D But seriously, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia...-- RyanCross (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You all seriously watch soccer? Can we say boring... -- America alk 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, again me... I see you're interested in soccer(or football)... You can see Euro 2008 page in quarter finals part Turkish footballers succeed in... All of the world was suprised... Greece won the cup in Euro 2004, so we want to win the Euro 2008 cup. But our work is very difficult... But I believe we will be the best...

P.S:You don't forget to watch Turkey National Football Team's matchs, because Turkish footballers are crazy... their matchs are very interesting... see you ;-)...-- (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFL, NFL, NFL, NFL, NFL, NFL!!!!! Bucs, Bucs, Bucs, Bucs, Bucs!!!!--   ChristianMan16  21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loosen up, Ryan! Wikipedia shouldn't be formal.
Note: FOOTBALL not soccer. And rugby towers over american football. --Gwib -(talk)- 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fütball" maybe. Rugby? You mean that old-fashioned sport they run around like and look so dumb? WOW you all are weird. Fütball doesn't even compare to Football. In 'soccer' (your football), they run around all day and get 1 point per team. But, of course, this is an encyclopedia - not the place to show how wrong Europeans are. Cheers -- America alk 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aussie Rules dominates anyway...But I'm quite interested in the Euro 2008 as Germany is in the semi finals...The life of brian (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meiner Meinung nach, ist Fussball stinklangweilig. Can we now move on? Microchip 09:56, Sunday, June 22 2008 Utc
Nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia. Please discuss on the football page or something.Prime Contributer (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's worse. Anyways. Already stopped... Microchip 15:13, Tuesday, June 24 2008 Utc

Help me!

Help me! I'm accidentally click save when I leave a mammal glands what I want to write blank. I want to delete it. SOMEONE HELP!


Don't worry. The article was deleted by User:Chenzw which was first tagged me because it was a test page. No more problems. -- RyanCross (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Solved as stated above by RyanCross.--   ChristianMan16  22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

resolution resolving

I'm new to the simple english wiki (many of you know me from English and test wikis). Do you think there are enough conflicts to have a W:MEDCAB, a W:MEDCOM, or a W:ARBCOM. If these already exist, tell me. Thanks.  Mm40(talk | contribs)  10:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links you gave probably do not link to the right thing. At the moment, we have like 30 admins, and about 50 regular ocntributiors (including the 30 admins). So at the moment, I do not think we need an arbitration committee, there are just not enough conflicts for that. --Eptalon (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eptalon, I totally disagree... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! No, as the few conflicts we have here can be easily sorted by other editors meditating/arbitrating informally. Microchip 16:59, Monday, June 23 2008 Utc
The same question was asked a few days ago, either further above here, or at WP:AN. The answer was no because we rarely have any big conflicts and disputes here. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it a good idea to have an ArbCom here, even if it doesn't do anything or not very much. Simply having it, tho, may just help. Otherwise, we may have to appeal to the Cross-Wiki ArbCom (located on Meta) in order to elevate disputes. Bstone (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the proposed arbcom here was active it would be useless. One of the elements of a successful arbcom is that it learns, evolves, improves. Until we have a minor conflict (and I know I haven't been here long but the biggest conflict I've seen has just been at RFA) we don't need arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been here long either, but as far as I can see there aren't just that many conflicts. I've been in a total of one conflict so far. Why? I think it's because my edits mostly go unchallenged. Very few people edit the articles I edit, and if they do, it's usually cursory changes like interwiki links, typos, or sentence structure, no major content disputes. Cassandra 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently at 30 admins at 30,000 articles - once we make 1,500 admins and 2,500,000 articles we may need something approaching arbcom. Until the need arises, why establish a cabal which is attempting to fix something that's not yet broken? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that there is no clear and present need for an ArbCom. How about, then, something like an appeals committee? Not quite arbcom, but consisting of a few admins (selected by the community) who would get involved when needed? Bstone (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) I think at present there is really no need for that either. We currently have 30 admins here. I am not aware of the need for confilct reoslution at this time. The last conflict so to speak was people getting excited over Razorflame's nomination for admin. At some point in time, the argument (all in the comments of his 8th nomination) boiled down to You did it, no I didn't, yes you did. At that point a mandatory cool-down (full page protection for one hour) solved the issue. I don't think an "arbitration committee" of sorts could have solved the issue better. I think the idea of calling on an interwiki arbcom is fine if there is really need for that. However, please remember that our aim is to create a free encyclopedia. Ideally, we want as little overhead as possible. The creation of committees that are rarely needed is such a case. --Eptalon (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed once before at WP:AN here. The answer was no. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote for a VGA

Hello there, I just wanted to remind you that we currently have Charles Spurgeon in the queue to become a very good article. If we want to be within time, voting needs to start on June 24 (Tuesday this week); we need at least 6 valid votes. Of these, 80% need to be in support. This means that for 6-8 votes, we can accomodate 1 oppose, two will kill the article. From 9 votes on we can have 2 oppose votes (3 will kill the article). Link to the proposed very good articles page

In a similar manner, there are several articles listed at the proposed good articles page; your input there would also be welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motherwell FC

Hi, could someone have a look at Motherwell_FC, Stephen Craigan's flag does not exist (Northern Ireland), could someone maybe fix that? I am not sure how that works. Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the redirect at commons so it should start appearing now. It may take a bit to happen though. -Djsasso (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I dont have access to commons at work. Thanks for that. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism could happen in the near future

Last night was the 2008 WWE Draft which leave our wrestling articles up for vandalism for the next couple days...enWP's articles are getting hammered with vandalism....and I wouldn't be surprised if some come our way so will everyone add the following articles to you watch list? Thanks.

I believe that's it...thanks so much for your help.--   ChristianMan16  16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are hit with heavy vandalism, then a possible protection of an article would be mandatory to use. But it seems they haven't been hit yet, so no protection is needed. Simply watching the articles is good for now. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye out, but I already monitor Special:RecentChanges, so there's no need for me to watchlist. Cassandra 21:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But I know at least one user is watching recent changes. I actually don't look at my watchlist very often because it is very easy to track vandalism just by looking through recent changes. We'll keep an eye out. -- RyanCross (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Supplemental Draft part of the 2008 WWE Draft happens today at Noon Eastern Time on keep an eye out for vandalism.--   ChristianMan16  15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with New Messages box

I think there is a problem with the new messages box. When I access SE WP at school, I get no new messages box. By the time I go to Special:RecentChanges, I get the box. Back to the main page - no box. --  Da Punk '95  talk  06:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is broken?

I can't access the english wikipedia but I can access every other language, commons and wikibooks etc. Why is not working?

That happened to me also a few months ago. If you are a registered and you have some installations to your monobook.js, than you probably didn't bypass your browser's cache. Something in your monobook is probably preventing you from editing it. If your just an IP at Wikipedia-en, then sorry I don't know what to do there. -- RyanCross (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's still not loading, but I just think it's strange I can access every other wikipedia.
May I ask, do you have an account at the english Wikipedia? Or are you editing under an IP address? -- RyanCross (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just without logging it.
It's working now! Thanks for your help.
Your welcome. :) Let's hope it stays that way. ;) If it starts not to work again, feel free to come back and ask.-- RyanCross (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible VGA

Hello everyone. I've knocked up an article on the current world's best female tennis player, Ana Ivanović and believe it fulfills most, if not all of the VGA requirements. Please read it over and give me some feedback or, better still, support its promotion. We have so few VGA's here that I've now seen the same article twice on the main page in only three months and I'm prepared to do what it takes to get us a new VGA! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Microchip 18:03, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc
Looks pretty good. I'd think, because from what has happened to Charles Spurgeon in the last few days, that it still has much to be done. I'd nominate it for GA first. But that's just my tedious opinion. Cheers -- America alk 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific American Eagle? I've checked the VGA criteria and I'm stumped as to what to do next. Microchip, thanks for the barnstar - can you offer an opinion over at the VGA itself? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Mr Spurgeon has 7 supports so he's doing fine - I made an extensive copyedit of the article so I think that I might have helped with that. Either way, if opinions could be offered at the VGA page or, better still, supports (!) then that'd be fantastic. Thanks for all your time everyone! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They (with your help) COMPLETELY copyedited the article with little things that were hard to find. One thing (but it may be fine) is that the whole article is about three sections, like the "Professional career" section could be made into two or more semi-sections from different topics. When I first nominated Spurgeon, I thought that it met all criteria and was perfect, but it had so much little things and things that needed to be tweaked. Cheers -- America alk 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, well I'd be delighted to take comments at the VGA itself to improve the article in line with the VGA criteria and with the community happy that this article is as expected. I'll look into sub-sectioning the career section but I think Spurgeon has a few too many sections. Anyway, either way it's a compromise. Thanks for your time and your quick reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for ease of clicking: Comment here. Woo, 999th edit. Microchip 18:48, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc

The article now meets all ten VGA criteria (see the talk page for further details) so please offer comments and votes at the VGA page. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board Elections

The 2008 WMF elections have finshed. Here are the results. Microchip 18:01, Thursday, June 26 2008 Utc

Films>Movies it's all messed up. Most here are "Movies" but that is different from what en:WP has it as. Should be fix them to coordinate with English? Thoughts? -- America alk 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I get the feeling that "movie" is very US-centric. This is Simple "English" Wikipedia, not Simple "US English" Wikipedia. I think film is universal. Personal opinion mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If needed, I could quickly go through and fix them all to match with en:WP. I'd do it. If no one here opposes me doing it, I'm going to go and move the cats and fix the pages. I'll wait... -- America †alk 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I acutally thought "movie" was there because it was more simple than saying film. But then, I was also creating articles with the (film) disambiguation (see X2 (film), V for Vendetta (film), and Speed Racer (film)), so it was contradictory in that regard. Is "movie" a term only tied to the United States? Really? That's new to me. Cassandra 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think it is used elsewhere. But they're about the same in complexness, but I'd change them so that every page that is created doesn't have to have its categories fixed. Should we, or no? -- America †alk 20:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time now to try to find the discussion in the archives, but this has been discussed before. I don't remember what was discussed word-for-word but the basic idea was that "movie" is simpler than "film" for a few reasons.

  1. "Movie" has only one meaning while "film" has many different meanings (compare en:wikt:movie to en:wikt:film)
  2. The word "movie" is more similar to the word for "movie" in other languages than "film" is
  3. "Movie" is generally also simpler for children than "film" is

As our goal is to be simple, I still agree that we should stick with movie in categories. I guess I don't have a problem with pages keeping Title (film) as the format, but I'd also be fine with switching to Title (movie). I generally think it would be unnecessary work though. · Tygrrr... 01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the past references brought me a flashback to my beginning as this subject from 2006 was the basis for my 13th through 18th edits.. 30K+ edits ago and I still remembered where to look..
  1. In October 2006, Category:Films was brought up for deletion because it was a duplicate of Category:Movies. This got reversed to nom Category:Movies because that is how en:wp did things and then it ws decided to re-reverse and delete Category:Films as movies was both more flushed out with subcats and a non-ambiguous, more simple term (technically, motion picture is the most correct term anyway, but movie is the accepted shortened form of it). This can be found in the second archive of the RfD page.
  2. The subject was later brought up by Huji dealing with the naming convention of "Bloh (movie)" vs "Bloh (film)" in Simple talk (archive 18 - Oct 2007). This touched on the ambiguity issues with the term film (thin layer, the medium used to capture images, and a motion picture) but was mainly dealing with consistancy in how we name articles about motion pictures.
Personally I side with the seperation that film = the medium and motion picture/movie = the finished product (and cinema = the location/theater and overall process as in "in cinema" which would still be ambiguous and "movie theater" and "in movie-making" would be better) -- Creol(talk) 03:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]