Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 53

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we should change the name.

I think it should be called the plain english Wikipedia. This is because the english in it isn't like "D is for dog" but it is easy to understand, unlike the normal English wikipedia.

What do you think? Brainbox (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well simple already means it's easy to understand. No point in changing name. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it makes it seem like it is for simple people --Brainbox (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I don't agree Oppose. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original English Wikipedia uses words that are complex in vocabulary and are meant to be for people who understand English fluently. The simple enlgish wiki's purpose is to provide a simpler form of english for people who have a hard time understanding english, those who are learning english (not necessarily children), or people who [probably] use english as a second language, and so on. As stated on the wiki's main page, this wiki "use simple English words and grammar here... That includes children and adults who are learning English." --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh, we can't just change the name through a voting process. If it is discussed, it'll be at some board on Meta, the central place for stuff like this. A developer would have to physically change the name on the database. Besides, I can almost guarantee that this will never happen. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with PeterSymonds. The name should not be changed. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite apart from any technical issues concerning a change of name, "Simple English" is a suitable name for this project because the articles are meant to be written in simple English, not just plain English. In fact, even English Wikipedia is meant to be written in plain English (i.e., jargon and complicated sentence structures are to be avoided). — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a silly idea --Brainbox1234 (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles about Notable Websites

I was thinking about creating some articles about popular/notable websites. Are there any types of things I should try to stay away from when creating these? I realize that I shouldn't make the article sound like an advertisement for the website, and I know about keeping a NPoV, but are there any other things I have to be careful about when making these (ie. are there specific guidelines about website articles, what constitutes notability in this case, what types of references are acceptable, etc.)? Thanks!

Cheers, ★ Braingle (Contact me + Contribs) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It all depends on what website you plan on creating an article for. There are already articles on websites (Wikipedia is one of the more obvious ones), and if you're still not sure whether or not the article would meet deadlines, there is criteria here to follow. --Gwib -(talk)- 20:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK Next Update needs to be double checked

Can someone please double check Template:Did you know/Next update and then move it on to the main page? There are objections to what I did at User talk:Either way#DYK. Apparently I'm not following the non-stated rules well. Either way (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They look fine to me. I'll move them over now. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much. Either way (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problemo. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject France

Hi everyone. I just wanted to tell you, I've started Wikiproject France. Please feel free to join! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know if I'm the only one that's getting this but I got a window popping up on my left saying "Sponsored results", why is this showing up, and how do i get rid of it, it's REALLY annoying.-- CM16 MLB  22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably have en:Ad-ware or en:Spyware on your computer. -Djsasso (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It pops up only on wikipedia and uses the wikipedia default background, so I know it's part of Wikipedia.-- CM16 MLB  22:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't do sponsored result I don't think. At least I've not seen it committed into the codebase. Can you send us a screenshot, it would help. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hold on, I'm gonna try something.-- CM16 MLB  23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, you can upload the screenshot to commons if simple won't let you. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm gonna run a Scan of my PC, and check my browser settings. If that doesn't work I'll be back with a screen shot-- CM16 MLB  23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adware is smart enough to mimic the sites you are at, so its not likely wikipedia based. I would recommend downloading spybot and having a go at it with your computer. -Djsasso (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you would recommend which?-- CM16 MLB  05:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He just said... Spybot. Its a program which you may find here Kennedy (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me and my dad found and fixed the problem.-- CM16 MLB  04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Collateral damage

There will be significant collateral damage to deleting all WP: pages. See the header of Simple Talk for just one example. Every shortcut box will need to be updated and every 'What links here' from a WP: page will need to be changed. --Gwib -(talk)- 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only temporarily. Once the feature's implemented it'll be fixed. But the developers required us to delete those redirects, so the only option is to hang tight for a while (unless you want to redirect them all!) :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What he said ;) The only options available are to change all the links temporarily and then change them back or risk wiki corruption and have the pages available when the devs implement it. As I mentioned at Wikipedia:AN, I would suggest a new Sitenotice explaining this. Thanks, BG7even 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, sitenotice is too much. I wouldn't oppose a watchlist notice, providing there are provisions in place to hide it like enwiki. But absolute no to a sitenotice. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that's fine. Either way, the Sitenotice still needs blanking from the Wikicup ;). A watchlist notice could work, but it's not yet set up here. I'll have a play tomorrow and see if I can get the code working here for an admin to copy in. Merçí (i dont care if thats wrong :P ) BG7even 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No more Collateral damage. I just finished speaking to a few admins who more about this process and we didn't "actually" need to delete anything. From what I understand, it gets taken care of when the bug gets fixed. So, they have all been restored. Synergy 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synergy: as I said at AN, from my testing no such page moves happened. Either way, they would still need to be deleted or moved eventually, and the pages still need recreating at some stage. Sorry about your -adminship as I feel somewhat I am to blame... :S BG7even 08:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add to the above I basically got it wrong ;) I didn't actually check with WMF devs, just going off my own back. Obviously the settings are different, so I probably missed a trick. Sorry everyone! BG7even 11:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New votes on two proposed GAs and one proposed VGA..

Hello community,

just wanted to let you know: RAID and 1997 Pacific hurricane season have been proposed to become Good Articles, and are up for vote here. Nudity is up for vote to become a very good article. In the meantime, let me remind you, that the queues for Good and Very Good articles are emptying; we would be looking forward to new nominations as well.--Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not be afraid to list new candidates for either GAs or VGAs on the resp. proposals page; in a week's time, we will have run out of VGA candidates....--Eptalon (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive time decreased

Hi all. I just reduced the time in between automatic archives from 7 days down to 4 days due to the fact that Simple Talk has reached about 97 kilobytes in length. I believe that this will help us start to archive some of these backlogged messages within a couple of days time. I would highly recommend that we allow the bot to archive the page to see if this amount of time between archives is definitely better than its' previous setting. Cheers, Razorflame 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm... I agree in principle, but due to the nature of our wiki it is going to have to be almost constantly tweaked as some weeks there is very little discussion and the next there are lots and lots. I'll monitor it and see how it goes, and tweak as necessary. 4-5 days should suite it fine though. BG7even 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I do agree that it will have to be changed with the amount of posts that correspond to each week. However, because of the amount of posting that has been going onto this page, I decided that it was a good time to make it shorter. Cheers, Razorflame 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know on the project I use the bot on at we let the discussion get to 125k max. At which point one of us just goes and archives manually the oldest few topics to get things back on track. That being said its only happened a couple of times to us. I actually just did it 10 minutes ago cause its been a hectic month for hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem about automatic archiving is that some discussions posted on simple talk can range up to for more than 4 or 5 days, i.e., prolonged dicussions, debates, polls, difficulty in getting a consensus. Not all posts or discussions last for the same amount of time. While unimportant posts generally do take up space at simple talk, I somewhat disagree about lowering the automatic archive time from 7 days. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 12:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I typed in a codename for a image from Commons but it is not showing up. Why is this? TurboGolf 05:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without knowing exactly what you typed in, it is hard to know where there is a problem. Looking at your contributions points to two issues that it could be, but it could also be that neither problem you have with {{flag}} tags (Austria-Hungary and Polish underground) may be the problem you are asking about. When asking for information like this, you really need to include what exactly you were trying to do that was causing you problems for us to have enough information to try and correct the problem. --Creol(talk) 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romania as a GA

Hi there all! I have been struggling to get the article Romania up to GA status and nobody has really offered to help me shape it up so that it can make the GA cut and possibly the VGA cut (eventually). I really need some help because of how long the article is, so if you can help me get it up to GA status, that would be greatly appreciated!

These are the things that need doing before Romania can go up for voting:

  • The whole article needs simplification and looking over with a fine-tooth comb. I have to admit that parts of Romania were extremely hard to simplify, but I gave it my best shot. The whole article needs copyediting and there are some sentences that are really a bit long for this site.
  • Every single red link on Romania needs to be filled in before I can put it up for vote. There are quite a few red links on the page, so any help with the filling in of the red links would be greatly appreciated.
  • All of the {{fact}} templates need to have references found for them, and I suck at finding references, so if anyone could help out by finding references for those sections would be greatly appreciated. Also, references might need to be found for some other statements in the article.
  • There are two sections that haven't been written for Romania yet, and anyone who could help write either of the two sections that are missing would be very helpful :). They are the Economy and Government sections. Both are very hard for me to simplify, so I am going to need a bit of help with that.
  • The Culture section needs to be either cut from the article or expanded a bit to make it more substantial. Right now, it is not very meaty, so anyone who could get any information on that would be very much good :).

These are the things that need doing before I would feel comfortable with having it go for GA status. Is anyone willing to help me make Romania a GA? Please tell me what you are willing to do on Talk:Romania so that we can coordinate between all of the things that still need to be done before it can go up for GA status. Thanks for reading this long message, Razorflame 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll start. Synergy 13:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Romania is now up for voting at the PGA page. Cheers, Razorflame 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot created articles - Why?

Why do we need to have bots creating our articles for us? Whatever happened to quality, not quantity? I'd much prefer to see us have a small amount of articles of good quality than thousands of short one sentence stubs, as many of these rivers and communes seem to be. Indeed, are all of these even notable?

Does anyone else agree with me on this point? In less than a month, our article count has risen by 10,000 articles. Fine, we move up the Wikipedia rankings, but is it really a good thing?

Please comment!

BG7even 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read up the page a little bit. A couple of days ago (maybe more like a week), we had a discussion about this and we agreed that having a bot create some of the articles for us would allow us to gain the building blocks that are needed to start making longer articles. Even short articles like the ones that me and Synergy and Yotcmdr have been creating are useful because they are definitely encyclopaedic. So we had everything to gain and nothing to lose when we started creating these articles. Hope this helps make sense of it all. Cheers, Razorflame 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have. As you know I was away at the time so couldn't comment. I opposed when I first read it, I oppose now. It's ridculous. And I disagree. Quality not quantity every time. Also, the above !vote was opened and closed within 48 hours - not time for the whole community to comment. This should have waited at least a week to gain consensus. I'm sorry, but I don't see any of these as notable. One page could cover them all much better. I suggest everyone STOPS until the community has had more time to discuss this. BG7even 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to agree with those saying we shouldn't have this mass creation of articles, especially if they are just going to be stubs for all of time. We could and should be trying to work on the existing articles. 2% of our articles are tagged as too complex. My belief is that we should work on those, fill in red links as we go instead of mass creating articles (regardless of them being about cities, rivers, novels, highways, whatever). Either way (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^^What he said ;) As I see it, our priorities are:
  1. Getting all the articles that every Wikipedia should have - we've done all but one
  2. Simplyfying all existing articles
  3. Completeing red links
  4. Create stubs with depth that have room for expansion
  5. Create shorter stubs (i.e. Rivers/Communes)
  6. Go home and have a party
Thoughts, again?
BG7even 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with BG.-- CM16 MLB  22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to say BG, I disagree with you (of course I do, I make them!) I've said it several times, but how do you think they started on ENwiki? With one sentence stubs. And what do you prefer, that I write the same stubs by hand and take 2 minutes every time or getting my bot to make them (about 10 a minute)? The other advantage with this technique, is that I can edit other articles whilst my bot is writting communes. That's a big advantage. Anyway, the articles will have to be made sooner or later if we want this to be an encyclopedia and not a collection of perfect articles in small quantity. If you want it like that, then call it Very Good Article Simple English Wikipedia! I think it's a way to make more people edit, making it more popular.If you go to a commune of France on holiday, you might want to edit the article once your back, but I know (friends and family told me) that people prefer editing an article rather than starting it. If it's there, they don't have to worry about notability, and other things. I just say, please, let us do it, because it is not harming the wiki, it might not be making it much better, but on the long term it will be better and on the short term it'll be more popular. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^I would have to agree with what Yotcmdr is saying. In the short-term, writing short stubs is neither good nor bad, but in the long term, if we want to have a complete encyclopedia, articles such as these will have to be created sooner or later, and I, for one, would rather that the articles be created sooner because that would most likely get other users/editors to come over here and start editing articles and editing on here when they wouldn't have normally edited on here. Cheers, Razorflame 01:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't got time to reply in depth, but the main point is is that I don't see notability for most if not all of these articles. And if they must be made, then make something more useful than a 1-line stub with a bot: use an account and expand them. Stop cluttering up our wiki. If you want to go run about and play with bot article creation, go make your own and play there, not on a live wiki where the clearly isn't/wasn't consensus for such edits. By rights, they should all be deleted until consensus is reached. Just don't make any more or I will be tagging them for deletion until consensus is reached: this is not a situation where WP:IAR can be used. BG7even 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you run about tagging valid articles, then it won't look very good. Also, I don't use bots to write articles as I can write my own fairly quickly, so technically, you can't tag any article that I create for deletion because I don't use a bot, meaning that I could use WP:IAR because there is no rule that is specifically denying me the right to create articles about topics that I find interesting. By the way, I already have my own Wiki. Razorflame 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quit the melodrama. :/ This is a discussion about whether the bot creations should stop. Dealing with the ones in existence requires a much more central discussion (if you haven't noticed, they take up quite a large percentage of Special:Statistics). Honestly, threatening deletion and waving IAR is as detrimental as going round and deleting random articles. Let's keep this on focus. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Razorflame: I am not referring to your articles in general. If I have made it seem that way I apologise. I am only referring to bot created articles which I will tag for deletion if they continue before consensus is reached. I am not going to tag articles already created because we would lose a good 10k of our article count, and I also cannot be bothered ;). But as PeterSymonds says, let's stay on topic and decide if we are or are not going to allow these creations to continue. BG7even 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straw poll

To help cut out the melodrama, I have decided to run a straw poll for this to help us reach concensus. Please !vote under the correct section and explain why you vote that way.


  1. Support with the same argument as I made last time. Razorflame 01:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support - I don't see what's wrong about them if I'm going to make them by hand anyway. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Strong oppose per all my arguments/comments/what-have-you above. BG7even 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose - Most of these articles don't have enough information to flush out a proper list if they were all merged together, let alone enough to support the need for separate articles for each. While notability is not so much an issue (any city should be notable), most of these are actually covered by Qd A2 - refrasing of the title (Beaconsfield, Iowa is a city of Iowa in the United States.); the only added information is it is a city in the United States which can be infered from the title (Iowa is a US state and the title uses the naming convention for municipalities in the US) --Creol(talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose I actually thought the articles were going to be longer when I first saw this issue come up so I didn't oppose. But now that I see they are all single line articles I must say using a bot is rediculous, especially since you can't really even call a single sentence simple english. Really these are just duplicates of in this form. I would say creating these single line stubs actually violates our WP:NOT in that we aren't just a duplicate of english wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, then I'll stop making french communes all together if that's what your saying because they're the same done by myself. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On en I would be 100% for these types of articles because on en I am a believer of a one line stub is better than nothing because en's focus is having all notable subjects covered. But I find the focus here is more on having as many subjects as possible covered in simple english. And if an article doesn't exist here its not that huge a deal because en will likely have it. I think these french commune articles should exist but I would rather have one article that is a paragraph or more long and in simple english than 10 one line stubs. But that is just my pov. -Djsasso (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well obviously you don't like simple as much as EN, or not the same way at all anyway. This is another reason I opposed your rfa, I think people have to be dedicated to the project. If you think they are ok on EN, then why not here? You reason isn't very clear. Simple-wiki is just another wiki, like en, fr, es, it... It needs articles to exist. This makes me come back to my other point; if you want a wiki with just good articles (the main focuse beeing making articles better) then fine, create a new Good article Simple wiki. Anyway, what does it change, that they are created by me or a bot? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you read WP:NOT one of the key components is that we are not just a mirror of en and that only the most common subjects should have articles. The mission of this wiki is simple english, not a repository of all knowledge like other language wikis. There is a very big difference in our goal and the goal of most other language wikis. If understanding what the goal o this wiki is, is a reason to oppose then go for it. but its clear to me that you don't actually understand what this simple english wiki is about. -Djsasso (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know we're not a miror of en, but what makes ahand written (1 sentence) stub more important than the same one (written by me again) but added with a bot? I am doubting you even more, and wish to reinstate my oppose in your Rfa. Be open minded, I'm trying to make my life easier, the wiki better (as I can edit as the same time as my bot) and just to do one of my hobbies. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't believe the hand written ones should exist either. For the same reason that Creol has stated. They actually qualify for QD whether created by hand or by bot. -Djsasso (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And to comment about you saying I don't understand what simple wiki is about, I think I can pretty confidently tell you I do. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well it's a bit late for saying that they need deleting now... Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And that sentence sums up why the bots are bad. Because too many articles get created too fast causing headaches if they aren't valid articles. -Djsasso (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You should of told me that when I was creating them by hand before I had a bot. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose - Bots are not helpful in creating articles, especially 1-sentence stubs. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 11:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Make your mind up, you supported above :D ! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose Some stubs are OK. But quality is what we really want. It depends. But these bots. They're driving me bonkers! I think we need quality not quantity. ѕwirlвoy  01:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]



DYK (Yet again)

Ok all,

I feel that this should now be the last fix needed for a while, as I know everyone (myself included) is getting fed up of it.

We should also be able to handle further things via this page rather than ST.

Anyway, the link is Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Suggested_section - comments welcome, as usual.


BG7even 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of the week template problem

Hi I have been working on the translation of the week the Kingdom of Tungning. i have copied the "former country" template across from enwiki but it is not working properly (no real surprise). It is adding info into the category section of the page. It is alos giving a warning about not using the right info. Templates are not something I really understand yet. Could some one have a look at the problem and either fix it, or make a new template, or show me how to do it? Thanks --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at it shortly. For the categories, it is most likely something in the <inlcludeonly></includeonly> tags that's adding them, they can be easily removed (or, the cats aren't in <noinclude></noinclude> tags). As for the template, it may be easier to make a new one: an already simplified infobox is here and it shouldn't be too hard to change it to what you need. Hope that helps, if you need more help ping me ;) BG7even 10:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you create a article?

I'm new so please can somone tell me how to make an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnlove24 (talkcontribs)

Hi, and welcome to Simple English Wikipedia first of all! To create an article, you type (write) the name of your aticle into the search box (on the left) and click go. Then you just click create this page (it's in red) You then just start writting. DOn't be scared of getting it wrong! If you do, we will correct it for you, and tell you how to do it better next time. Kind regards, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refrences problem created by Nameless User

Nameless User (talk · contribs) has performed multiple edits like this one. They now need to be undone cause {{reflist}} is preferred. Help is needed, thank you.-- ChristianMan16 t c r 09:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both work, no need to go changing them all unless you are making other edits to the page as well. -Djsasso (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They both work I believe. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both of them work, the only difference is in the text size of the reference(s). {{reflist}} is useful only when there are a lot of references. Not a problem for now. Chenzw  Talk  13:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(e/c) It is a matter of preference as far as I am concerned. I would however agree that edits solely changing from <refrences/> to {{reflist}} (or vice-versa) should not be made, especially to change back from one to the other again... What I am saying Cman is that you should not go about undoing all those edits, because that is just as pointless as in the first place. Kennedy (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{reflist}} lists all of the refrences. <refrences/> makes a refrence appear in the {{reflist}}. VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect. You are thinking of <ref>. Both {{reflist}} and <references/> list all the references tagged with <ref>. -Djsasso (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(note to self: Both {{reflist}} and <references/> list all the references tagged with <ref>. ) VandalFighterFR(V) Bad warning? 14:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was nearly good faith, it's not like I yelled at him, all I did was put a little emphasis on the "stop". The <references/> tag only shows the references, while {{reflist}} shows them and give you the choice of columns which is good when multiple references are there.-- ChristianMan16 t c r 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK credits

There is a straw poll to gauge rough consensus at this place. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More importantly, see #DYK (Yet again) above, as that deals with the more important discussion/consensus, rather than !votes.
BG7even 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That as well. The poll won't determine anything, it will however, determine if more time needs spent on this. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOS Question

For headers ==Is this correct== or ==Is This Correct==?

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depends on if its a proper name or not. If its not a proper name like Career statistics then no cap on the 2nd and later words. If its a proper name like Montreal Canadiens then its capitalized as in the name. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends upon if the person/subject is a proper name or not....oh wait..Djsasso got to it before I did! Anyways, I prefer headings like this: == Is this correct == for non-proper named articles because it helps with the readability of the title in the editing window :). Razorflame 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PGAs and PVGAs

Hello community. Right now we have three potential Good Articles, and one potential Very Good Article up for voting. Since votes last for only one week and requires a minimum of 5-6 votes, I'd like to the community to review the new articles so we may be able to find consensus among editors wether to promote the articles. Cheers:) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission request-Importers

Permission granted. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello there community. There are some pages that I would like to transwiki from the en:WP because it would be much easier to do that then to have to make each part of the list of asteroids individually. I would like to ask the community if you would be alright with me requesting the import permission temporarily so that I can get those list of asteroid pages over here without much of a hassle. I have used the import tools on a test wiki before and on the Go Wiki, which is the Wikia Wiki that I started, so I do have experience in using the import function. However, I need community concensus before I can request the permission over on meta.

Questions from NonvocalScream (talk)

Will you convert every article you import?

Answer: Yes, I will fully convert every article that I import so that it complies with Simple English. Razorflame 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you not do any mass (by cat) imports?

Answer Besides the transwiking of the lists of asteroids (which will be some pages), I will not do any mass edits or imports. I will make sure that I only transwiki a few of the lists of asteroids at a time, though, so you don't have to worry about that because I know about the pitfalls that can befall people who import. Razorflame 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you mass import the asteroids, will you immediately convert the *entire* import?

Answer The beauty of it is the fact that nothing needs changing between the lists of asteroids because it is just part of a table. I was going to use the import tool to import all of the pages like List of asteroids/1–100 and so on up to the finish line. Cheers, Razorflame 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside from rollbacker, account creater... do you hold any other restricted permissions foundation, or on a local wiki?

Answer No, I do not hold any other restricted permissions anywhere. I have rollback both on here and on the English Wikipedia. Other than that, I have no other restricted permissions. Cheers, Razorflame 00:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Support The candidate will not do any mass importing other than the already compliant asteroid articles. Also, I remind the candidate to import the *entire* revision history and place "From [[en:ARTICLE TITLE]] " in the comment field of the special import page. I let the candidate also know that the transwiki import (bottom option) will fail (with a can't open import file error) all the candidate has to do, is continue to press the import button until it is successful. The candidate may have to wait a few minutes (don't repress the import button till you get a success or fail) for the import to process. I also ask the candidate to watch my (and others) import logs for compliance, and I'll be watching also. Best of luck , NonvocalScream (talk)
  2. Seems like a reasonable request. SteveTalk 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support - The more the better;) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Oppose This isn't an oppose to you specifically. This is an oppose to the tool itself. I just plain don't think it works well enough to rely on. I watched Novocalscream the otherday import the same article a number of times and continueously have to get it deleted because it didn't transfer correctly. However, if the community thinks its cool for you to have it I won't argue it. :) -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am still not sure of its necessity even if it is fixed. If the article has to be completely changed to simple english does it really need to be imported when you are going to have to completely rewrite the article anyways? -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Same as Djsasso. Its not working out too great. Synergy 17:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strike for now, until I can do some fact checking. Synergy 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Never mind then. I will stop this right here because it seems like this is not that great of an option. Cheers, Razorflame 17:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The issue is fixed and I've successfully imported a couple of articles. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the issue has been fixed, I am going to ask the community once again if they would let me have temporary access to the importer flag so that I can do some importation of some of those lists of asteroids ;). I need to have community concensus before I can request the permission on Meta.

I am therefore reopening my question to the community. Thanks, Razorflame 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Moving Main Page into Wikipedia: namespace

Hello there. I would like to move Main Page into Wikipedia: namespace. The reason why I want to do it is because it is not an article, it is related to Wikipedia. TurboGolf 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Support It's nonsensical to host a non-article in article namespace. The page is there purely as an historical accident. It should be moved to Wikipedia:Main page. The arguments below: we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship - that's not about adminship, that is adminship. Same with Requests for deletion, admin noticeboard, and this very page. And I can easily fix all the links. Majorly talk 21:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support I've never been fond of the Main Page being in the mainspace. It is certainly not an article, and shouldn't be in that space. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support Changing to support per what PeterSymonds and Majorly have said. It actually seems more logical ;). But, should it be Wikipedia:Main Page or Wikipedia:Main page? Or... could something like Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia be used as the main page? Or just simply Wikipedia:Wikipedia (though that may get confusing!). Cheers, BG7even 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some projects have Project:Main Page (replacing project with the name of the project), or Portal:Main Page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Personally I think that Project:Main Page (or Wikipedia:Main Page) would work best. We can't have Portal:Main Page as Portal: isn't (yet) a namespace on this wiki. Thanks, BG7even 22:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Strong support - per above.-- CM16 MLB  04:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support The article namespace is for articles. --Werdan7T @ 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Oppose - Per usual reasons. Been discussed before. Kennedy (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose No idea what the usual reasons are, but I don't think this is a good idea for several reasons. My main one is the cluttering up of the Main Page and links that would need to be changed. Also, the Main Page, while not encycopedic, should stay in the Mainspace because it's not "Project" related for the Project space: Wikipedia:Main Page would be more suitable for a page about the Main Page, not the page itself, and that's not really needed. Hope I haven't confused you! BG7even 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Struck by BG7even at 21:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose - I see no reason why we should remain the main page. It is fine as it is. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - This is definitely not needed as we are doing just fine without our main page titled Wikipedia:Main Page. Also, I oppose this plan due to the reasons that were brought up in the last one. Razorflame 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose - The Main Page is fine in the article namespace. Although it isn't an article, it shouldn't be moved to Wikipedia:Main Page because 1) lots of links would need to be changed, and 2) technically it's not about a certain feature in Wikipedia, as Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Rollback feature are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathCool10 (talkcontribs)
  5. Oppose - Fine where it is and actually, it does contain encyclopedic information. --Creol(talk) 07:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Creol's got a point. Why? EN doesn't do it. It is somewhat encyclopedic. ѕwirlвoy  02:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RFA votes

Moved to WT:RFA. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive Bot

I would like to hire a bot to archive my talkpage. TurboGolf 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User:MiszaBot for instructions on how to set it up. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category: Classical double bassists

I'm not quite sure what is happening. I have created a Category: Classical double bassists (which contains two articles). I tried to create REDIRECTS for Category:Classical double-bassists (hyphen) and for Category: Classical double bass players, but these seem to come out as separate categories. Please could someone delete these two and check that they are redirects. Many thanks. Sorry for the bother. Hikitsurisan (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't actually redirect the category namespace, so that would probably be why. Also the initial category is wrong. I will fix for you, and tag the others. Thanks, BG7even 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good pictures?

I noticed that there isn't a very good picture (featured picture) process, and it seems to me that it would be a good idea to create one. Thoughts? Juliancolton (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the idea. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep so do I. If it's ok I'll have a think overnight and draw up some suggested criteria tomorrow? Thanks, BG7even 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. Juliancolton (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From where? We don't allow uploading of images... Kennedy (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but I was thinking we would instead recognize images from Commons that fit a set of criteria. Juliancolton (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes from commons. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't have enough participation for this. We barely have enough participation for PGA/VGA and at times, DYK. Adding another mainpage process is asking too much, too soon and for these reason, I don't think it should be implemented. Lets focus on what we do have, and work on what needs to be fixed first. When we have more editors, we can add new shiny things to the mainpage. Synergy 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Synergy. I've ont been here too long, but I do see there is not enough participation for this. Fix the existing, then add more. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindenting) We are not Wikimedia Commons. This wiki also lags behind in progress with the current VGA project. There are very few users who show commitment to any of the wiki's on-going projects. I do not think the community is ready for such things. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Perhaps a good starting point would be to get a picture for every article - a good picture can really help with the explanation. I know the enwiki has a template to add to pages that need a picture. Could we have one here? This would mean editors could pull up a list of pictures so they could go hunting through the Wikipedia Commons. It might encourage some of us to go out a take a few photos when they can't be found on the Commons. I have been out in the Subaru, now called the Wiki-ru, collecting photos to support articles on Ned Kelly and Charles Sturt.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Every article is not feasible. Given copyright issues, articles on books, albums, television series, movies, video games and many others just cannot become available for years to come. There are certain work-arounds (images of the stars of a series or movie for example) but for the most part this can not happen. Other topics just do not bode well towards pictures. Certain ideas just do not work in image form. Things like Dogma (the concept, not the movie), Child grooming and Style guide fall into this group. Then you have all our asteroids and rivers.. They all pretty much look the same. 5000 pictures of a rock with a black background are probably not very useful.
    That all being said, I would agree that most articles (that do not fall into the categories above) should have an image. Work is being done to include images in a lot of the bio articles where the images exist on commons but that is still a long way from being complete. Most common everyday items already have images on commons that should be added but others will always need to be added (either taken personally or flicker/en non-fair use/some other free source). --Creol(talk) 06:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No more Main Page sections, please. As Synergy says, we barely have enough participants for PGA, PVGA, and DYK. Thats enough for now. — RyanCross (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Permission request - Oversight

Proposal withdrawn. If anyone wants to propose this again, go ahead. I don't even think there are enough active editors (whom participate inthese discussions) to make this worthwhile. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We don't have any local oversighters for this project. The oversight policy is located at m:oversight. I propose that we add this permission to our two most active checkusers, who have already identified themselves to the foundation.

  1. User:Creol
  2. User:Eptalon

The policy requires 70-80% approval with at least 25-30 editors supporting.


  1. As above, that I would rather we have local oversighters as opposed to poking a steward when this is needed. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. This is needed like, twice a year? Stewards are always around if needed. I also firmly believe in separating permissions out amongst other regulars. Those two already have bureaucrat and checkuser. We don't need to pile anything else on. Majorly talk 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. We don't need it and I agree with Maj: Why give them all the responsibility? ѕwirlвoy  02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further Discussion

Just a note: At the time of this writing, a meta steward counted the local oversight log for 2008 and counted 16 actions for 5 events. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:M7 also has demonstrated experience with this type of information, but he is not all that active, but is a suggestible candidate as well. (Anyone is suggestible by anyone, I'm only counting checkusers at the moment.) NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

School projects

I seem to remember there was a tag or something like that, that was put on some articles that a school class was working on to stop them from getting deleted before they were finished. This might be needed again - there is a Korean class making some pages which were deleted, one of the pages is Daeboreum. The group has just recreated the page. I have put a note on the talk page not to delete, not at least until they have finished it, then a decision could be made like any other page. Anyone remember the tag, or where I could find it? Peterdownunder (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{classproject|project name}}, although there should be a point of contact for the project in case of any problems that may come up. This is usually one of the teachers. --Creol(talk) 12:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So far, we also want a description of the project at Wikipedia:Schools/Projects. This should include all the affected pages, and ideally a wikipedia editor who can be contacted if things go wrong. --Eptalon (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number 1 reason

According to Djsasso, I am the "number 1 reason people don't edit here. Either this is just another one of his petty attacks on me, or it's true, and I'm damaging this project. If people don't want me here, I'm happy to leave, and let this project fail. Majorly talk 20:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather see Djsasso leave. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd rather see no one leave, to be honest. Unless of course, there is persistent drama and disruption. Majorly, you should have used his talk page to address this issue. Synergy 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's he point in using his user page if Djsasso thinks he should leave? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course. But when I talk to him, he says I'm badgering him. And I can't get a response out of him without him making a rude, sarcastic dig at me. I think others need to discuss this. Majorly talk 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly Majorly, I've seen you got at it with Creol before. And if you can dish it out to people, you should be able to handle anything that comes your way. My suggestion is to ignore the comments. Synergy 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think he's right and I don't think anyone should leave this project, you're both valuable to the project, BUT I do think you could try to improve your people skills, you come across as harsh sometimes, like this.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 20:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to point out I never said you should leave. What I said was people have told me that you are the reason they don't edit here, which is a fact. It may be an unpleasant one, but a true one. I also don't consider it a personal attack. Especially considering he personally attacked me above that. And I don't always think you are badgering. The way you handled yourself in my Rfa showed me you are capable of unheated rational discussion, but its the uncivil attacks you constantly make on anyone who disagrees with you is what I consider badgering. Perhaps you are just far to pasionate about the things you believe in, I don't know. But you do come off as very uncivil sometimes and I am sure you know that since you had an Rfc (on your request) about it and it was quite clear in it that people thought the same. I am more than willing to have a civil conversation with you, but when your first response to anything said comes off sounding like an attack, how can you possibly not expect to be responded to in the same manor? -Djsasso (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And am I the only one who sees it as being rediculous to ask the people still editing here if he is the number 1 reason they don't edit here? How can he be the reason any of you don't edit here if you edit here... It's also amusing in his comment "I'm happy to leave, and let this project fail." that he calls me arrogant, yet he thinks the project would fail if he wasn't here... -Djsasso (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unable to tell whether you are being serious or sarcastic - you tend to use sarcasm in the most inappropriate situation. Plus it wasn't me who said you said I should leave. If "people" name me as a reason they don't edit here, would it not be best if I left so they could come here? Majorly talk 15:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I meant the part about not saying you should leave to the other commenters. I wasn't clear enough. There are other solutions than leaving, like trying harder not to bite people who have different views from you. It's the snide comments that I think get people upset, atleast it is for me. -Djsasso (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by NonvocalScream (talk)

I don't think anyone should leave. Majorly has a reason to be upset at the comment. Djsasso should not have made that personal attack, and if continued, should be warned. A quick "Attack the argument, not the commenter" should suffice. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I'm asking is if the comment is true. Is it true, or is it a lie? Majorly talk 20:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of all my experiences on this wiki, and other wiki... I've not felt unwelcome by you. Sometimes we get heated, but we have discussed like adults. I don't list you as a reason for me to not edit. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Majorly: You, along with two other editors, are among the highest IMO: I'd trust you implicitly, as I would with the other two editors. Go speculate! First person to guess them both first time wins a cookie! MC8 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Majorly shouldn't leave, neither should Djsasso. Majorly's entitled to say what he wants as long as it doesn't violate WP:NPA. Although, I think that Djsasso's comment was a little out of line. let's just forget it and worry about more important things. Shapiros10 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Approved Bot?

Is this an approved bot?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His edits look good so I can't see him not getting approved but Creol (since he does the approvals mostly) should message him at asking him to request approval. no:Brukerdiskusjon:Laaknor which appears to be his main talk page based on his bot user page. -Djsasso (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That being said this wiki allows automatic approval of certain types of bots so a crat or steward could just grant it without a request assuming his edits are good. -Djsasso (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no need for local approval, its was flagged as a global bot back in August 08. All of its edits should have been hidden here since it began back in November. --Creol(talk) 06:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I assumed since he was bringing it up that the edits weren't hidden. I didn't look in the recent changes log only at his personal contribs. -Djsasso (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification please?

Hello all, Nudity was recently up for vote as a VGA, but failed to make it. There were two main reasons why it failed:

  1. Some statements made in the article needed sourcing; it is however unclear which ones, and to what extent.
  2. Currently it is extremely difficult to get people to vote on a GA or VGA, even more so if people consider the topic to be partly controversial; the article got six votes only (5 support, one oppose at closing time)

This statement means that certain articles (even if they are well-written) can never get a VGA tag. One example for this is Berlin Wall (no, I do not want to propose it for VGA). The event is too recent to find good sources; events that young are not interesting to historians.

Keeping this in mind, I think we should come up with a guideline as to sourcing statements. I think the basic principles for this guideline should be:

  • A statement/fact that does not immediately follow, or that is not obvious to a normal reader needs a reference/source added, if such a source can be found.
  • Sources added must not contradict each other; they can focus on different aspects or different levels of detail though (If they do, the one writing the article did something wrong)
  • We should not exclude articles from VGA (or GA) on the basis that no source can be found

Something else, that should perhaps be considered:

  • The fact that an article is moved to the voting means that it fulfills the requirements; at the voting people support or oppose, they should no longer question the validity of the article being there. In that respect, it would perhaps be good if someone who is not involved with the article (did not nominate, has not written/changed) large parts moved the article to the voting stage

I realise that this is perhaps extremely hard to achieve given that recently a few articles were not promoted because they did not reach the minimal number of votes.

Anyway, comments welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the proposal that I brought up over on Wikipedia talk:Requirements for good articles for two proposals that I have given for GAs. Cheers, Razorflame 16:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will expand more on the criteria later, but in short I agree with everything in principle. Just to comment on my action (I said it on IRC but want transparency!), I took into account all the arguments, !votes, struck !vote etc, and I felt that it wasn't viable to promote the article in the chance that after promotion it was forgotten about and no-one thought to list it for demotion. I didn't want a sub-standard VGA to be promoted. (Or, sub-standard per current criteria) Thanks, BG7even 19:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Romania now a GA/Proposed VGA

Hi there all. Romania was promoted to GA status earlier today. Thanks for the hard work you guys put in Peterdownunder and Synergy :).

Next, I have proposed Romania for VGA status. There are still things that need to be done before it can become a VGA. It would be very beneficial if someone could come up with a list of things that needs completion before Romania can become a VGA. Thanks, Razorflame 16:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VGA/GA proposals

Hi there all. Based upon how inactive I have found the Wikipedia:Proposed good articles page to be, I would like to ask the community about my proposal to lower the total amount of voters required from 5 named editors down to 4 or possibly even lower because of how inactive it has been. Looking back at the last couple of votes, there have been several articles that are good article status just by looking at them that failed to be promoted due to the fact that we don't have enough active voters in the GA process to attain the 5 votes required by the requirements. This has hampered our intentions of getting more articles promoted to GA/VGA status.

Another proposed change that I would like to bring up is to leave the number of required voters at 5, but to make the votes last a period of 14 or 21 days instead of the 7 that we have it set at now. By making votes last longer, that gives more possibilities of more editors participating in the votes and a higher probability of articles passing the GA/VGA process.

Both of these proposals are up for debate and I would like to hear from the community about what they think about these two proposals. Thanks, Razorflame 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very shortly: In my opinion, the total time spent should be left at 3 weeks; 2 weeks voting would therefore only leave one week to fix outstanding issues (the 4-5 criteria to meet). This may be awfully short; also most articles changed considerably between being listed, and being promoted. This may be against the guideline. As to the reduction of the number of votes: It is no problem to get 5 (6) votes, as RfAs show. We just need to motivate people to vote. --Eptalon (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to suggest we add a neutral vote section to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfAnew, opinions?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is redundant to the "Discussion" section, as neutral comments may already go there. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have to agree with Nonvocalscream on this one. Neutral votes make it hard to add the votes together because neutral can't be a vote against or a vote for, so most of the time, they just end up making the number of votes go up while lowering the % of support an editor has. And also, it could just as easily go in the Comments section ;). Cheers, Razorflame 06:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose neutral votes. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We used to have neutral votes. Problems came up as sometimes they were counted as votes and sometimes they were not. This got realy confusing for people and also caused the problem Rflame brought up - Neutral is not in support, so if it is counted as a full vote, it is effectively the same as an oppose. We changed to a comments section after a long discussion to remove the problem. --Creol(talk) 06:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should reopen it cause an oppose vote is not a discussion therefore shouldn't be in that section.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 08:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why was it counted as a vote though? I don't know of any Wiki that does count it towards the total votes ( certainly doesn't). Either way (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, you can't count neutral votes in the total count, since they would be identical to oppose (they're lowering total support percentage). They're useless as votes, and are only used when someone is unsure whether or not to support or oppose. Thus, they can easily be chucked into a 'comments' section, which opens more of a discussion to those who are unsure and has the added bonus of giving a much more clear support/oppose view on the candidate. --Gwib -(talk)- 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(<-) Very simply: You either support a candidate, or you oppose him/her. A neutral vote is telling other editors: "look, I would really like to vote, but for some reason, I cannot decide either way". This is a comment. Counting it as a vote is not possible. Suppose: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral: 2/5 support, 2/5 oppose, 1/5 neutral; 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral; do you promote the candidate? (64% sup, 27 % oppose, 9% neutral); 65 % needed for promotion? - Therefore: no neutral votes, as this simplifies things considerably.--Eptalon (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then, just out of curiosity, why does en have neutral votes then?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe its just their version of comments, basically if you want to make a comment to the user without attaching a !vote to it. Atleast thats how I always looked at it. Some people like to use it to indicate they intend to !vote but haven't finished going through all their edits yet. -Djsasso (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oversight clarification..

Hello all,

I just wanted to quickly clarify what oversight is, and why we do not really need it. Using oversight, special admins (called oversihters) can delete revisions of a page, so that they are no longer visible to other admins (as deleted edits). This may be useful for hiding things like "personal info".

The reason why we do not need is is that over here, all admins are trusted by the community; drama among admins is unheard of (we had no admin demoted because of bad behavior, in recent times). We can therefore trust our admins to not reveal such information.

We therefore do not need oversight in this wiki.

All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with what is said above, however, it wouldn't hurt to have you and Creol have the flags. Even if you don't use it very often, if you got the flag, that way, you wouldn't have to bother poor Spacebirdy (you won't get this if you haven't been on this site in March of last year when we had a huge vandal spurt) to hide those revisions ;). Just my 2 cents though...and wasn't Netoholic demoted due to bad behavior (and J Di maybe?). Cheers, Razorflame 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eptalon and Creol are not always immediately available should an oversight matter come up. Therefore it's much easier to ping a steward, as there is always one available, and the job is done very quickly. Oversight requests are rare, so it's not a big deal. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We still need oversight per Wikimedia Foundation policy if personal info is published on a page. Also on request. Techman224Talk 03:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have oversight, we don't have any local oversighers. Oversight is accomplished by stewards currently for this project. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given how rarely it is used, I think that solution is fine for now. Alternatively, we can elect local oversighters; but I think for now the job would be mostly ceremonial. --Eptalon (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please Help

I am writing an article on Graphics. Please help me to transfer these image file from the English wiki Image:MSN logo.svg, Image:VW-Logo.png and Image:MSN logo.svg--Artaxerex (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This project does not allow image uploads. If you want ot use these images, upload them to commons. --Eptalon (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is there anybody here who can help me with this uploading? I tried to do it but I'm afraid I am rather dense, with respect to all the jargons. Please Help --Artaxerex (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, you are best to ask at Wikimedia Commons if you need help uploading, as they know their system better than we do. However, you won't be able to upload the images above as they are "non-free" or copyrighted logos rather than "free" images. Thanks, BG7even 19:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That means I will not be able to finish the article. How can one ask to change this policy? Why we are not like en-wiki? This discourages editors and they will leave. Please have a look at graphics, it would be impossible to continue whithout these pictures --Artaxerex (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artaxerex, articles do not need images to be complete. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and this wiki's community decided that it would be better to have no image at all rather than a copyrighted one that cannot be reproduced. Also, as the SEWP community is very small we cannot patrol the images that would be uploaded to check that they are suitable and have the required taging/copyright etc. Wikimedia Commons is much better equipped. Thanks, BG7even 19:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guys, I think s/he's asking for help to upload them at Commons, but judging from the name, they are logos therefore Commons won't allow them either.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CM16: I know... I already said ask the Commons guys for help... and that they won't have logos... BG7even 19:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you very much. I guess I don't want to change the policy. But as you can see in my article these pictures are needed to convey the point. In Farsi wiki somebody helped to upload these files. I don't think the system will be abused if these pictures are uploaded here under some supervision. I can write this in the english wiki, but I am sure simple wiki will become more eminent. --Artaxerex (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You're welcome. Fair-use uploads may be a possibility at some stage, but we currently don't have enough users to be able to monitor it. Our current processes such as GA, VGA, DYK etc don't get enough input already, one more would just die. I don't know about the policy at Farsi wiki but perhaps they allow uploads there? I'm afraid you won't be able to upload them here at all, if they are then they will be deleted. Sorry. I'm not sure how Wikimedia Commons works exactly, but I don't think they allow logos there, but I suggest you ask. If they are there they can also be used at any wiki. I'm sorry but the images won't be able to be uploaded here, though you are welcome to ask other users for their input. Thanks, BG7even 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive bot

I really need an archive bot. Sooner or later this computer will crash and my Nana'll be mad at me...TurboGolf 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you mean? I don't see why your computer will crash if you don't have an Archive bot. Do you want one to archive your talk page? Or do you want to run one? Can you explain further? BG7even 15:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it ain't mine. My computer at my home may crash. I want one to archive my talkpage. TurboGolf 15:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that's fine. You can find instructions at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. If you are stuck I will set it up for you. Best, BG7even 15:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could have sworn I answered this question a week ago. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like Bluegoblin 2 help me. TurboGolf 15:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Djsasso: it really doesn't matter if it's been answered before. The user may have forgotten about it or have misunderstood it, or it didn't work.
Tharnton345: I will head to your talk page and help you.
Thanks, BG7even 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello all, I have something I really need to say. The adminship system and RfAs, at least here, are so pathetic. People keep failing RfAs, getting opposed, for totally false reasons. It's turned into a complete game. People fail because they don't have enough edits, because they haven't waited six months, because they are quote/unquote "not active enough," because there isn't enough need, etc, I could name tens more. Then we have users wanting to create a new criteria, where you need "6 months and 1,000+ edits." Whatever happened to it being "no big deal," and just some buttons for users to use who won't abuse them. For goodness' sakes, this is all pathetically a game. TheAE talk 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to note one of those diffs you provided wasn't an oppose. It was in response to his bragging that he waited 6 months like he promised to this time. And I was pointing out that he shouldn't really brag since he didn't really give us any time to judge him. He returned a month or so ago which effectively means he only edited a month between Rfas again. Adminship is no big deal in that you shouldn't look at it like a "level up". However both quality of edits (not necessarily number) and how desperate they seem to "level up" can help determine if they can be trusted with those tools. Like it or not there is a level of trust needed for the tools. -Djsasso (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Razorflame isn't "desperate." He simply knows how to use tools, won't abuse them, and requests to be granted the flag. That's all adminship is. TheAE talk 02:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And he might not be anymore, that is up to everyone to decide. The fact is, he has had 10 Rfas (9 if you don't count the bad faith nom). Which does smack of being desperate for it. Any other user probably would have stopped trying after 2 or 3 failures. Some I suppose would keep trying, but I would question why they keep putting themselves through all the hassle and often hurtful things that come up in them if they didn't desperately want it. And just to make perfectly clear I don't necessarily think he is desperate this time or I would have opposed already. -Djsasso (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless the user is a vandal and/or obviously not suited for adminship (which isn't true in Razorflame's case), I don't see why he needs more than one RfA – he should have passed last time. Regardless, all thie drama and "weak opposing" that has been going on is useless and not what adminship is about. TheAE talk 03:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Unindenting) I do not believe that my last RfA should have passed. The WP:OWN and WP:BITE and canvas issues were all very good reasons for opposition and that is why I believe that I should not have passed my last RfA. Razorflame 03:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it odd that you complain about activity level when you personally voted all seven times to remove the admin flag from people because they were not active. What good is there to the project to give the flag to a user who a month from now is likely not going to use it? How is FSM[1] currently helping the project? Under one hour of activity since the end of his first month of admin (much like J Di - get the "prize", play with it for a month then get bored and move on) does no good for the project and all the time spent discussing him becoming an admin was pretty much wasted effort. Adminship is about trust; the trust that the person will use the tools to the benefit of the project. If that user is
  1. Not likely to use the tools at all or after a short period (low activity, ramped up activity just before the nom/self-nom, has never or very rarely ever had the need for the tools),
  2. Has not shown us in some way that the understand the policies need to be followed and have earned that trust (we can only gauge a person by the edits they make - without enough of a basis how can we trust? - Edit count),
  3. does not have the best interest of the wiki in mind (are they here to play, to politic or to create an encyclopedia? - main space edit %), or
  4. considers this all a game with the flag as their prize for winning,
I personally feel that they are not likely to use the tools to the projects benefit and should be opposed. There may be no hard set numbers to define a yes from a no and other things will help or hurt (admin experience, banned sockpuppeteer, low number of comments but always dead on in policy and demeanor when making the comments, talks a lot but is usually not quite right or even completely wrong), but a candidate should do well in all areas listed to be supported. --Creol(talk) 05:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I voted to remove the flag because they had been inactive for 6 months+/a year+. I didn't support desysop because they only had 10/50/100/whatever-editcountis-we-are-up-to this week, I supported because they had been gone for a long time, and had no use for the tool. TheAE talk 05:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what's up with this project but we need to get it back on track now.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 06:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(<-) Please note, that at the moment, adminship gives you the following, which you could not get otherwise:

  • A mailinglist where admins can discuss things privately (mostly dead, in the last times)
  • The ability to protect or delete pages
  • The ability to block users

In exchange for this, the community needs to trust you (no, this is not about an edit count). In order to trust you, the community expects that most of your edits are in the main, the template, or the category namespace (we are not here to talk, we want to make an encyclopedia). If you do not need these tools, don't bother with requesting adminship; you can be a perfectly respected editor, without these tools - heck, you do not even need an account. --Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completely, Entirely, Totally Pathetic. TheAE talk 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with AE on this, this is absolutely ridiculous, Razor should have been an admin 5 RfAs ago. But y'all shot him down every chance y'all could, our RfA system is broken, and most of you don't want to fix it. Does that not seem wrong to you?-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 23:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's only broken because you make it broken. Majorly talk 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's broken because we ALL made it broken, and I'd be careful Majorly that can be seen as a personal attack if you ask me.-- Chris†ianMan16 t c r 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a personal attack; please don't throw around that link. Juliancolton (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Adminship is (and should be) NO BIG DEAL"!! When a user votes, they vote whether they can trust the user to handle sysop tools. Adminship is about trust. It is not a prize. If the community can't trust the user, then the person cannot be a sysop. Also if you fail an RfA, don't fret. Improve yourself and fix your weaknesses, and maybe you can succeed next time. Also all users don't need sysop tools to edit Wikipedia. You can still contribute without extra tools. Sysophood often only gives you more responsibilites. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can think not. The simple wikipedia and simple wikitionary have been expanding rapidly since months ago. If you wish for Razorflame to gain adminship, you might as well convince the community first. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 04:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with AE: the system is falling appart. I've kept saying it. People that are en admins seem to pass too easily, as en users vote for them even though they're not active. Other users with a bad record at EN are opposed, even though at simple they've been great. Please let's re-do the rfa system as I've been saying for the last 2 weeks because I'm fed up to and thinking of semi-retiring. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 09:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(<-) We do have several options:

  • Require higher percentages to pass, eg. 70% and 80% support (instead of 65 and 75, currently used for Admin and Crat). This means that one vote will have less weight, but it also means that adminship will be harder to achieve.
  • Require more votes (10, instead of 5); number of votes has never been a problem, though.
  • Only admit named users' votes once the user has done a number of edits (100,200,500) in this Wikipedia. Currently, the number of edits that disqualifies an editor is around 20-25 (votes of editors with fewer than that number are struck). An alternative would be to require "activity" (50 edits) in the 30 days before the vote.
  • Require participation in the community (ST/DYK/(V)GA processes). hard to quantify though.--Eptalon (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the second, third, and fourth points. I believe that only people who are active at this community should have the ability to vote for users who request adminship here and I believe that based on this, people should re-adjust the number of supports and opposes on every single RfA that has been done up until this point to coincide with these new rules. I believe that users votes' should only be counted if they have made between 100 and 200 edits on this project and at least 50 edits before the vote is set to start. Furthermore, I believe that while it would be hard to quantify activity in the community, that it would be a necessary part of the process. Cheers, Razorflame 18:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you suggesting that we remove any active administrator whose vote count wouldn't match the proposed standards? Either way (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course not. They have already passed their requests for adminship. If such is the case that the new policy would make them not be an administrator anymore, then I believe that we have these options:
  • We could just let them stay as an administrator because they already passed or
  • We could have them have a confirmational RfA where people would confirm that they can stay an administrator.

Good ideas? Razorflame 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think having an RFA re-confirmation isn't a bad idea. But it should be done with precise voting rules we'd have establish beforehand. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we would have to establish the new voting rules beforehand. Also, I think that any RfAs that have recently failed should be allowed to be redone under the new rules so that that way, it would be fair to everyone involved. Cheers, Razorflame 18:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Eptalon, every single one of your options makes it harder for qualified users to become +sysop. This does no good, and only makes adminship a bigger deal. TheAE talk 18:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We could always give everyone who applied the flag for 30 days to see if they could do it (not really a good option, but still one that should be thrown out there). Of course, it would be up to the bureaucrat to decide if they would be allowed the 30 days. Razorflame 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That is the point, it shouldn't be super easy to get. It's not like the standards are very high here to begin with, they are already 10% lower than most other wikis. As far as the no big deal quote it was in reference to you shouldn't strive to achieve it. To be somewhat blunt, I think some of the problems of drama and crap here is that it is too easy to become admin here, not too hard. -Djsasso (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Re:AE: I have seen the Criteria work quite well. The only thing that I see (that may be a problem) is that certain users who vote in RfAs do little else on SEWP (or they were active, but are now retired). There are two ways you can control this (if you want to change it): Either you lower the impact of one single vote (done by raising the req. support needed), or you make it harder to vote (done by attaching some kind of "activity criterion" to the validity of a vote, eg. 50 edits in this Wikipedia in the 30 days before the vote started). It is clear that either way, it will be harder to get adminship, because you either need more support votes, or those voting need to fulfill extra criteria. We do have a working guideline, we want to change as little as possible, to keep it working. --Eptalon (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Break in the discussion

Moved to subpage. Criteria for adminship discussion continues here.