Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 56

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

Hello, I'm back

Hi all,

Just FYI, I'm back now. I had a great deal to do. I had two deaths in the family and a graduation and a new job to deal with. I'm going to start with some topics regarding Nazi Germany for the foreseeable future. Glad to see we got the rollback bit going on! Who do I ask for it? Take care fr33kman t - c 07:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back. The only major change that happened here is that several administrators have left Simple English Wikipedia, including Creol who I was most surprised about. Anyway, you can either ask any administrator or at WP:RFR, but I've already given you rollback, assuming you were asking where to request because you wanted to use the bit. And you qualify to use the tool, as I see no problem with you using it, hence, the reason why I enabled rollback on your account. — RyanCross (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ditto from me. Great to see you finally bad here on this site :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both of you! Right, seems a few people have left. No worries, I'd better get editing then hadn't I? :-) fr33kman t - c 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GA and VGA icon replacement

Hello all, I suggest that we break away from the grips of en: and we change the icons for GA and VGA so that they are both stars, but the VGA star looks more golden than bronze.

My goal would actually to be that File:Utmarkt Guld.svg and File:Utvald kandidat.svg be the VGA stars, but somebody render an identical silver version of it in SVG to be the good article stars. Thoughts? Comments? obentomusubi 07:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good articles should use this Symbol support vote.svg to avoid getting them mixed up with VGAs. But I like using a gold star to sybolize VGAs rather than a bronze star. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In fact, leaving it as Symbol support vote.svg is easiest. I have actually already implemented the gold stars... If you don't like it, then please respond below. (Thanks Snake 311; good advice). obentomusubi 08:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I actually like the green star, but there's no corresponding PGA star for that... if someone could render a version, that would be really great. obentomusubi 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to a green star. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert it. obentomusubi 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing it to a star. It takes time for a few of our editors to notice discussion like this, and you'll have to wait until other people express their opinions before making any more changes to templates. Synergy 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually changed it back to the support icon. It will not work with the {{icon}} template as a banner. obentomusubi 22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that they should definately both be stars because the average reader (the person we all work for) recognizes a star as being the pinacle of any image to identify "quality". I also think that VGA should be gold (platinum is too silver looking for our purposes) because gold is most frequently the top prize (see: the Olympics). As for the GA star, I really like green from an astheic viewpoint, but silver is more traditional, but 'd be okay with either. I do think the silver should appear more silver, rather than the gray it looks like in my browser (Opera) at the moment. The GA#2 star above is clsoer to the silver (metalic) I'd be looking for, but I'm not dogmatic about it. fr33kman t - c 04:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the exact same sentiments. I'll upload the "silver" star I created from the golden one. obentomusubi 04:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is my final suggestion:

Yep, I'd go for that, perhaps with a tad more "shine" [ie: metalic shine] to the silver ( the gold really looks like a metallic GOLD), but I'm cool with the way you've presented it!! :-) My view is that the silver tends to look grey, and not the metal "silver" (Of course, I'm just one opinion) [mind you, I've been away for a whle and would gladly bow to the will of the community (I am ALL for the community viewpoint!!!) fr33kman t - c 06:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Good article do not need stars. Period. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 07:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. However, imho, the star is more aesthetically pleasing than a circle with a green plus. I think we should leave that icon for {{support}}. I'm only one opinion, though. Let me see what I can do with the silvery luster, though... obentomusubi 07:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If you purge the cache, you should be able to see the higher contrast, "silvery", metallic version. Cheers, obentomusubi 07:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay here's my final idea: If you want to change the VGA symbol from a bronze star to a gold star, by all means go ahead. But (please) do not change the GA symbol. And that's it. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 09:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's take a straw poll, let the community decide. obentomusubi 23:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The new metallic star looks very nice. fr33kman t - c 00:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! obentomusubi 06:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured/good topics, lists...

Hello everyone. I don't know if this has already been discussed (not in the 5 months I've been here I don't think) but have we thought of having good/featured lists or topics? If so maybe now as we have grown considerably we could consider these as they wouldn't make too much more work. Feel free to comment. Thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we currently have VGAs, and GAs, with all the problems of motivating people to contribute there. If I look at a list of things, I cannot see anything that would make it better, other than listing all things it is supposed to list. If I understand you correctly, you want to introduce a third category of "better article". Looking at it realistically, I think we are too small (as in: too few people contributing) for that, atm. --Eptalon (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone wanna guess which one this is...

Anyone wanna guess which recently banned user this probably is. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, but it's sure amusing to see all those mistatements. Majorly talk 20:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Most of what it written underneath the vote isn't worth reading because frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the vote at hand. As of right now, the vote stands at 40/95. I find it highly unlikely that this project will close due to the facts that we have more than 55k articles and that we have a very active community base. I just can't see it closing. Razorflame 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Razorflame's right. If someone has something against the Simple English Wikipedia, doing something like what you presented is not the way to handle it. It may actually end up making the opponent looking like a fool, quite frankly. I think I know which "recently banned user" you're referring to... did he welcome me on my talk page? obentomusubi 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually at the time I posted this I wasn't sure who. But now that I have seen some of his replies I think I know who, but I forget their IP so I can't compare. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, closure proposed. Bad idea! fr33kman t - c 22:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
current poll 43 support/97 oppose (those are raw totals, illegal votes have not been deducted). Given that this has been running for 4 months, I suggested it should be closed.--Eptalon (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. obentomusubi 08:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree it should be closed, can't believe anyone would want to shut down such a valuable resource (which has grown steadily over time) as simple: fr33kman t - c 03:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup Reiteration

I have a proposition for the Wikicup. Please leave a comment or two on the talk page. obentomusubi 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Flood Flag

Simple now has the flood flag. :) Synergy 02:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, should be useful. –Juliancolton (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask what this flood flag is? --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 02:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
May I second this motion? obentomusubi 02:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It allows an admin to hide their edits so they won't flood RC. Its like what happens when a bot gets flagged, only a crat is not needed, and it can be done and undone by an admin. Synergy 02:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I remember that. Someone told me that they flagged me, I think. obentomusubi 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Wait. Why do you need the flood flag? I'm starting to become suspicious about this whole "flood flag" thing. If the admins' actions are hidden from the rest of the wiki, how do we know whether something might be going on? --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't have that many admins, so I doubt that will be a problem. –Juliancolton (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh really... --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
If we had 1,600 admins like en, I would agree that a flood flag would be problematic. We have a handful of active admins, who, in such a small community, are highly unlikely to abuse the flag. –Juliancolton (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if the flood flag has been assigned, anyone can track what changes they have made by tuning in to the RC feed on irc.wikimedia.org or by toggling the "show bots" setting on the RC page, so not much of a problem. Chenzw  Talk  13:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel so bad. I announce it at AN, it doesn't get one comment. Synergy announces it here, everyone's all over it. Maybe it's a popularity thing! (:D) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
More people pay attention to ST than AN. Synergy 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This talk page edit was made under the flood flag. Check my last 50 edits. Its solely to prevent flooding. Synergy 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

new welcoming template

we need a new welcoming template. I'm free to make it if someone tells me how to.  ←Kalajan→  16:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you believe we need a new one? -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well it dosen't look gd at all, white background and little info. Maybe we should get a new one?  ←Kalajan→  17:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
White backgrounds are preferable as colours are eyesores for many people. As far as little info, what info do you think is missing? This wiki in general doesn't do much welcoming because we don't welcome until after accounts have made edits, so most info needed is probably already on it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I thought like Peach or Khaki. And the other english wiki has got loads more info.  ←Kalajan→  17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We aren't the other english wiki. We are a completely seperate project that uses simple english which is different from regular english. You can create your own template in your userspace if you wish to see what others think of it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the prob, I don't know how to, I mean, I need to know how to type in {{text}} and make a big testament appear.  ←Kalajan→  17:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I will gladly work with you, since I know how to make the code for templates. Tell me what you want on my talk page, and I'll work on it with you. (I love collaborations!) obentomusubi 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
We don't want to flood the newcomers with obscure information; we want to supply them with the basic knowledge to begin editing. –Juliancolton (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No, just improve the given info, add the necesary, remove mix around and bang! Done.  ←Kalajan→  17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a new template. It can show that this wiki is not all plain. It's not a bad idea. SimonKSK 19:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants is free to help.  ←Kalajan→  19:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, rookies, well let's see what you can come up with.-- † CM16 t c r 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I'm a rookie here, and I'm relatively new, speaking of designing templates... but I don't think my work is at all bad. obentomusubi 23:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am working on a template. You can see it at User:The Obento Musubi/Welcome. obentomusubi 07:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

she's a beauty she is.  ←Kalajan→  14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Here it is; {{User:The Obento Musubi/Welcome}} It's really great, much better than last.  ←Kalajan→  16:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects

Hi there all,

Please have a look at Proposals for closing projects. Some users want to close this wiki. --barras 09:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, its actually been discussed before. Most people here have already voted. Theres actually a discussion a few sections up. Thanks though ^_^ Kennedy (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to get this discussion closed, but it looks like proposals on meta stay open for at least six months. We therefore need to have two months more patience. Currently, that proposal has a high level of off-topic discussions, and the vote is more or less double the number of people oppose closure than support it. Pay no attention to the other discussions, as they are irrelevant (What good is a proposal to merge SEWP articles into ENWP, if SEWP stays open). Similarly, how do you expect them to come up with a definition of "Simple English" if we can't? --Eptalon (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's nonsense. I've also asked for it to be shut, but oh no, they can't do that, even though there's obvious consensus to keep SEWP. I like the idea of changing the domain name for simple wikis. Like having en.simplepedia.org for this. Or fr.simplepedia.org for a french simple wiki. But meta doesn't seem to care for anyone but the big projects. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment: Simplified German currently fails; the DEWP people don't want it.--Eptalon (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it fails, but it would be really helpful. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 12:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay - very important

WNK Essay - Express your opinions at the bottom section, where it tells you to. Thanks, it's quite important to create a new policy or whatever. Just add you opinion. And sign!  ←Kalajan→  14:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

An essay isn't a policy. Nor should this be a policy. Thirdly you can't just copy and paste something from en without attributing the work of the original author per GFDL. -Djsasso (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As a note, this is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikproject_on_how_to_create_sock_puppets. -Djsasso (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I said a policy or whatever, and I didn't just copy and paste it, I contributed to it and I'm working on it right now. Could you just stop hunting me down? I'm just trying to help here; make a new life.  ←Kalajan→  15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You still have to attribute it when you move it from one wiki to another even if you have changed parts of it. As for the hunting you down, its hard not to suspect you when the first page you created here was a How-To guide for not getting caught as a sock puppet. -Djsasso (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It was a newsletter! And I'm not making any damn socks am I?  ←Kalajan→  15:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea if you are or not. I am just saying you need to get used to the fact people will expect a higher standard from you because of your past. -Djsasso (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm trying to make an essay and welcome templates after 1 day here. Is that bad?  ←Kalajan→  16:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1st and 2nd lvl Warnings against vandalism

I know and you know that the 1st and 2nd lvl warnings are very lame. We know that they don't experiment! The templates should be changed.  ←Kalajan→  20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a button which is named Edit. Use it! You can also create a template in your namespace and use your template. --barras 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Problem there. It's change and I'm an apprentice template maker. lol.  ←Kalajan→  20:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The first and second level warnings assume that the person is acting in good faith, doesn't really intend vandalism and perhaps is just bored and trying out stuff. Perhaps they're not, but we like to start out nice, then move to the higher warnings. Personally, I've found that they work well and I have had loads of cases where after a single level 1 warning, the editor stopped. If you see an edit that is blatently not in good faith, or you see that the person has done loads of bad edits in a few minutes, then you can skip straight to level 3 or even level 4. There are also single level warnings that can be issued for certain actions. I'd check this page for a list of them all. Hope this helps! :-) fr33kman t - c 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Where is the good faith? They might be experimenting. You can't just ABF all the time, ya know. It's one of the things that got you blocked on en, Kalajan. SimonKSK 21:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree, a lot of it seems to be kids just messing about. Many of these folk don't realize someone is watching and so just mess about. The vast majority of problems end with just one warning {{test1}}. We are all advised by policy to assume good faith in each other, why not these folk? :-) fr33kman t - c 22:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK noms

Just a suggestion but maybe we should use this template I made at the end of noms to show who nominated it.-- † CM16 t c r 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong support – Now I know how to do that on templates! I like it very much. obentomusubi 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Department of fun

In en. there's a dept of fun. Maybe one should be created to funnen this place up. Should we? With joke products (templates)... I don't really know what it does so I'll ask SimonKSK. He's in it at en.  ←Kalajan→  16:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Synergy 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would that be I wonder? You've got to pump up your humour or you'll end up with red eyes and an aching back!  ←Kalajan→  17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(change conflictx2)No. It's not a good idea, for the obvious reason that we're not MySpace, but also because we have too few active editors to keep something like that in the background, behind the encyclopedia. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
(E/C)Uhhh... I don't think it's really needed. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Jimbo Wales is in it at en. Why don't you tell him it sucks?  ←Kalajan→  17:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, now please, stop arguing. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, be nice. I'm personally not too keen on the idea myself. Jimbo Wales can do whatever he wants. I guess what we're trying to say is that the Department of Fun may be a great idea for en, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for the Simple Wikipedia. En is much bigger with many more users than the Simple English Wikipedia. obentomusubi 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It is preferred that the man hours (man in this context can mean woman or man, just a work utilization term) be spent on the end product (articles) , instead of other things. You can make some humor products if you like, just don't make that the only thing you do here. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think." That's what Jimbo said. >.> SimonKSK 21:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I'd not support a DoF on seWP for the simple fact that we don't have a large enough community for it to be a side thing. I also don't think that it would actually get much usage. I also agree "because Jimbo says" is a good argument by itself. fr33kman t - c 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Per Synergy. Kennedy (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Just no. - tholly --Talk-- 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to have fun. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'd beg to differ. I have fun here on Wikipedia. The only thing I think what you're trying to say is, the main priority here is to write articles and expand human knowledge. Having miniature little "fun" things may be a little too light for Wikipedia. Am I right in saying that? obentomusubi 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Proposal

Hello, all. I have three proposals.

  1. Wikicup Proposal – see Wikipedia talk:Wikicup and User:The Obento Musubi/Wikicup for more details.
  2. GA and VGA stars (see above discussion)
  3. Welcome template – a collaboration with Kalajan (talk · contribs), I created a template (from scratch, my own work) that you can visit in my userspace at User:The Obento Musubi/Welcome.

Please leave suggestions or comments below in the respective subheader (organization). Also, feel free to use {{support}} or {{oppose}} templates. Thanks! obentomusubi 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Wikicup Proposal

  • Oppose - The Wikicup is already a rediulous idea for a wiki this small. Should kill the cup period not make it even more bureaucratic. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I like it, have it after this wikicup. And Djsasso: don't spoil the fun. It isn't a bad idea; just because you're no fun doesn't mean others can't have fun. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • My point is that its wasting what little resources we have on tracking it when they would be better served fixing any one of a number of articles to actual simple english. -Djsasso (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The thing is, those five articles can be simplified by a team WHILE being expanded. We can add that to the rules. After all, VGA and GA does not rely entirely on simplicity. It must be well-written, and it must be of a healthy size. obentomusubi 18:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
        • NoNo I am not talking about the articles in the competition. What I mean is the time wasted on organizing the cup, tracking the standings and judging and all of that would be better spent fixing other articles. -Djsasso (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Here's the thing. I'll take on the role of organizer and judge. Although I do edit articles in the main space every so often, I usually tend to do the behind-the-scenes work, like template maintenance and design, and suggesting new ideas to "freshen up" the wiki. In my case, it wouldn't be a problem of wasting time better spent on the articles at all. Just my "twopence". obentomusubi 18:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Anyone else who wants to help organize and judge may feel free too, as long as it doesn't impede with development and simplification of articles. But I have this question to ask: Isn't the point of the Wikicup or a Wikicontest supposed to be to improve articles anyway? obentomusubi 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Djsasso. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea, my only question is whether it could work on a smaller wiki such as this. Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see why not. I think, if we want to make it work, it will. Cheers, obentomusubi 00:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GA and VGA stars

  • I think keep the gold star for VGA. And have the green symbol for GA.Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've only been keen on stars for very good articles, but that's enwiki stuff seeping in. I'm in favour of stars for very good articles, and I'm not bothered by the icons for GAs. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've no strong feelings on this one really and am more than happy to go with what ever the community decides. fr33kman t - c 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would rather keep the stars for the good articles only and have the current support vote template picture for the good articles. I would rather like to keep things the way they are as that is what most people, including myself, are used to and it would be too much of a hassle to get things changed at this point in time. Cheers, Razorflame 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    I think you mean keep the stars for the VGA articles? :) fr33kman t - c 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    Bah, yes, that is what I meant ;). Cheers, Razorflame 23:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome template

  • Oppose - Far to busy with far to much information that is likely to overwhelm a user. Current version is much better. Wouldn't have as big a problem with it if it stopped after the first box at the top. That being said, colour is very discouraged due to access issues especially on simple where we have editors with various conditions that make it hard to read with colours or use computers that aren't capable of displaying information in colours very well. -Djsasso (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the template. It's better than the others anyway. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice, but far too big. Wikipedians learn only partly by lots of links. Most experience is developed by trial, error and practice. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Would you mind if I copied that last quote? I really think it hits the spot: "Most experience is developed by trial, error, and practice." obentomusubi 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I have removed the other boxes. It is too long for Simple English. obentomusubi 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • SupportWell that's only because simple english seems quite lame and poor, I mean it gets a new edit every minute, while en. gets one every split second. I think she's a beauty. Support.  ←Kalajan→  19:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) User is banned.
  • Support the new template looks fine a beauty. --barras 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Dosen't she! She's a beauty!  ←Kalajan→  20:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I changed it :) --barras 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

lol.  ←Kalajan→  20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong support SimonKSK 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad template, but I've also nothing against the old one, it got me to stick around! Let's make sure we use the old one until we get a community consensus to switch. fr33kman t - c 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Djsasso. Would rather see us stick to the old templates than this one. Too busy and could have the potential to discourage users instead of keep them here. Cheers, Razorflame 23:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment There is also nothing stopping you guys from putting it in template space and calling it Template:Welcome2. There is no reason we can't have both. Anyone can welcome in anyway they want (well within reason). I just don't think it should be the main template if you get my meaning. -Djsasso (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • So we have both! At en they've got about 20. Let's let the welcoming user choose either.  ←Kalajan→  16:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I fully agree with what Djsasso said above me – it is a very good template, but I think {{welcome}} should be a basic one. We have many welcome templates, and I think this one should be added as another for users to use (and I like it personally). The main {{welcome}} should probably stay default and simple. TheAE talk 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Testing phase for new deletion discussion - MfD

I've created a new deletion discussion forum for non articles. It will be where we discuss userspace pages (such as article duplicates, guestbooks, essays, etc), wikipedia namespace (such as essays, etc), and the MediaWiki and Help namespace is included in the event something should come up, and we need to discuss a deletion. If the idea takes off, we can move it to the Wikipedia namespace, and continue it there. Since this is a new process, any result of a deletion discussion will set a precedent for future cases, and as such, will amend any current policy or guideline pertaining to such discussion. Thank you and enjoy. Synergy 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! :-) fr33kman t - c 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I believe that a Miscellany for Deletion here would be only beneficial towards the Simple English Wikipedia at this point in time :). Cheers, Razorflame 23:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have anything against it, just playing devils advocate, but I thought our Request for Deletion page covered anything that needed to be deleted (including non-article pages) since we are so small and don't need to go to a million places for things. -Djsasso (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Just saying, when will the testing period be over? I'll be happy to rename RfD to AfD and fix Wikipedia:Deletion policy to include AfD and MfD, if necessary. - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 07:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Text add to Monobook.css

div.topicon {

   position: absolute; 
   z-index: 100; 
   top: 10px;
   display: block !important;

}

This is for the template {{icon}}. Thanks! obentomusubi 09:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get what this is about.  ←Kalajan→  14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am not entirely sure either, but I was hoping someone else would swing by and enlighten me. TOM, could you expand a little? Thanks, Kennedy (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Never mind this. I was experimenting with the icon template, but I figure it's not going anywhere else... obentomusubi 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay

Link here, the yellow bar was rather distracting. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 ←Kalajan→  15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

...do we really need that yellow bar? –Juliancolton (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Dunno, I'm not very good at templates; It was the only one I could make =P  ←Kalajan→  16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It also catches peoples attention, which is gd. Cause they read it.  ←Kalajan→  16:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone help me here?  ←Kalajan→  18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Help you with what? -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I really want to create this article, and I need help with it. It dosen't feel nice putting up notices everywhere and these not getting read or looked at.  ←Kalajan→  18:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Most people are probably not interested in the essay. Personally I would take that as a sign. -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Most users aren't even reading this.  ←Kalajan→  18:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Simple Talk is the most read page on this wiki. People are seeing it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, why don't they give their opinion? Please help me.  ←Kalajan→  18:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Most users use their time for other things like fighting against vandalism or create new articles. That's the reason why nobody give an opinion. --barras 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I've got time to do all that and advertise this essay. Funny ey?  ←Kalajan→  18:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Some users have a real life. I know what that is. And you? (rhetorical question. I don't want to get an anwser.) --barras 18:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I've dropped a message on your talk page. Don't reapeat it.  ←Kalajan→  18:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To be frank, we're not interested in the essay. As Djsasso said, that's a hint! Personally, I'd request deletion of the subpage; it won't be going anywhere. I'd also be supprised if any regular didn't know about it by now. Remember, we all watch recent changes, so we do know what's being created. You also published this advert on ST before and was told it was not the right way to go about it, plus you published it to WP:Announcements. You've said that you want to get started in mainspace, go for it; you now have all the info you need on how to get started. fr33kman t - c 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Children, stop fighting around here (not meant to be an attack of any kind, meant more as a sarcasm thing). This was meant to get an opinion about something, not to have other people attack others' opinions about things. Personally, I don't see where essays belong in Wikipedia because they are kind of POV, and can be construed in very weird and/or derogatory ways. That is probably one of the reasons why this isn't getting very many opinions on the topic (because not many people either have the time to write an opinion about this, or they just don't want to either get involved or reply to this thread. Kalajan: If I were you, I would stop trying to advertise your essay, as it won't help you get the attention that you want your essay to get and because it makes you look (sorry for being so blunt) like an immature child. Razorflame 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Truth be, I don't really know what essays are for, but I write them, then ask XP  ←Kalajan→  19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal Suggest indef block for User:Kalajan. History of socking elsewhere, little more than a disruptive nuisance here Soup Dish (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Already proposed on the Admin's Noticeboard. Cheers, Razorflame 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

'Wikinews'

As this is the most active Simple English project, I'm using this page as a 'local meta' for the Simple projects. A while back, there were some users who were thinking of proposing a Simple English Wikinews. I don't think it went to the proposal stage, but I found an old proposal from a while back. Simple English Wikibooks has a very small userbase, which needs more users. My new proposal is, if there are enough users who would be interested in a Wikinews in Simple English, could contribute to an "Almanac" namespace on Simple English Wikibooks, dealing with both news from recent events, and modern world history. If kept in a book format, such as an online version of the chronicle sections of Schott's Almanac, it would stay in line with the Wikibooks criterion of free texbooks and manuals. The way I see it is that b: needs more users, n: is a popular proposal, so why not combine them together? MC8 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese icon ideas

After surfing the Portuguese Wikipedia, I noticed they did something weird with the HTML/CSS... here's the code for the featured article icon:

<div id="destaques1"><div id="destaques2"><div id="destaques3">[[Wikipedia:Artigos destacados|<span title="Este é um artigo destacado. Clique aqui para mais informações.">   </span>]]</div>
<div id="destaques4">[[Imagem:Cscr-featured.svg|14px|Este é um artigo destacado. Clique aqui para mais informações.]]</div>
</div>
</div>

Translated to English, it would be roughly:

<div id="verygood1"><div id="verygood2"><div id="verygood3">[[Wikipedia:Featured articles|<span title="This is a very good article. Click here for more information.">   </span>]]</div>
<div id="verygood4">[[File:Utmarkt Guld.svg|14px|This is a very good article. Click here for more information.]]</div>
</div>
</div>

And the CSS on the Monobook.css layout is:

 /*
 ** Artigo Destacado
 */
#destaques1 {position: absolute;z-index: 1;border: none;right: 10px;top:15px;margin: 0.0em;padding: 0.0em;}
#destaques2 {position: relative; width: 14px; height: 14px; overflow: hidden;}
#destaques3 {position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 100px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 100px; z-index: 3;}
#destaques4 {position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2;}

Comments? Suggestions? Clarification, click here. → obentomusubi 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This way, it automatically knows if there's another icon taking that place, so number one would automatically go to spot #1, etc. obentomusubi 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I believe we should create a template that universalizes protection templates. It would be, for example: {{protected|semi}} or {{protected|full}}, etc. More ideas/suggestions? obentomusubi 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia also has a way of getting around the darned banner. If anyone knows how to change the position (with banner, lower; without banner, higher), I would love to know how! obentomusubi 21:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a bot do this?

I was wondering if a bot would be able to make some small changes for me. I want it to change most of the pages that use {{wikiquote}} to {{wikiquote-en}}, similar to other sister project templates, based on if there is a page on Simple English Wikiquote. I would be willing to do it, but didn't want to waste my time if it would be possible to be done automatically. Is it possible? I know little about bots. Thank you. TheAE talk 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be possible. AutoWikiBrowser might also be able to do it. I'd ask Razorflame about that though as I don't use. fr33kman t - c 00:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
AWB, my friend :). Razorflame 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yup AWB could do a simple search and replace. -Djsasso (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Thought so :) fr33kman t - c 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, who knows how to do it? :P I am clueless with AWB. TheAE talk 03:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a very valuable tool and you might want to learn to use it anyway. It is downloaded from SourceForge at this address. It runs in XP or Vista and requires no browser. For information on how to use it (so you have some idea when Razorflame or Djsasso talk to you about it) I'd start with the documentation pages over on en: at User manual, which will give some some confusion idea of what it is about. It's a tool I understand (and am allowed to use, on enWP) but have not used yet. It is very powerful and can really help you do a great deal of, otherwise, mundane edits on a wiki. It works on almost all, if not all, wikis. Hope this gives some help at least! :-) (As an admin, you can (of course) allow yourself to use it here at seWP via Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage) fr33kman t - c 03:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
If no one has any objections, I can get it done by tomorrow. Just a final check:
  • Change {{wikiquote}} on articles to {{wikiquote-en}} only if that page does not exist on Simple English Wikiquote.
  • Leave the article alone if that page exists on Simple English Wikiquote.
By the way, admins are automatically allowed to use AWB. You do not need to be on the page. Chenzw  Talk  04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct, Chenzw. Thank you for writing that all out, Fr33kman. :) TheAE talk 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
More than willing to help fr33kman t - c 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Task done. However, using AWB to sort this out is a bad idea in the long run. Articles on Wikiquote (both EN and simple) are constantly changing. They can be deleted (or created) the next day. I would suggest some experienced (python?) programmer writing out a script to fix this. Chenzw  Talk  07:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a generic script that can accept variables from a page (fully protected) where jobs would be approved and then submitted? That way it can be multi-function and do any sort of find and replace. fr33kman t - c 18:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFR

Why isn't any admin checking WP:RFR?-- † CM16 t c r 06:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Chenzw (talk · contribs) got it. — RyanCross (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Tekken

Please join if you're willing to create Tekken related articles. Chocolates (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox v2

See fr:Projet:Infobox/V2. obentomusubi 06:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposition is that we add the code to the CSS to make the boxes have the cool headers (i.e. the musical notes). In my opinion, all of the French infoboxes kick the English Wiki's any day. obentomusubi 06:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's extremely cool, but how would we get it to work for Professional wrestling?-- † CM16 t c r 06:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
We can do it if you make a semi-transparent image of something, resembling the music notes, film reel, etc. obentomusubi 06:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Think: what represents wrestling? If you can't think of anything, we'll have to just use a generic sports header. But also note that not all infoboxes require this header. obentomusubi 06:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Generic wrestling title. and I don't have the tools nor the know-how to do it myself.-- † CM16 t c r 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Idea: what if all sports involved in the Olympics or all Olympics-related articles had an infobox with a header of the rings? Wrestling would technically fall under that... even if it's not at all affiliated with the Olympics, the point is, when people hear Olympics, they think sports. (at least, that's what I think...) Ideas? Pictograms? obentomusubi 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The wrestling in the Olympics is called Amateur wrestling. I'm talking professional wrestling, big difference.-- † CM16 t c r 06:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What did you have in mind for the icon? Maybe one of our editors will be able to create an icon for pro wrestling. obentomusubi 06:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we started an Infobox "Project", or guidelines on designing infoboxes... but more laissez-faire than what it sounds like. obentomusubi 07:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking something like a championship belt like the WWE Championship?-- † CM16 t c r 07:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
My only fear is that focusing on just ONE sport would be too "favoritist". That means we'll have to do one image for basketball, soccer, football, etc. obentomusubi 07:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that, but I do think wrestling should be an exception cause their not only athletes but actors as well. I'd like to hear some other thoughts.-- † CM16 t c r 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't anyone else commenting?-- † CM16 t c r 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I think fr's infoboxes are too myspacy. We aren't trying to make pages pretty, pretty pages distract from the information. -Djsasso (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just had a look at a band info box on the French wiki, and they look great. Let's do it! --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest to you, Djsasso, I think the infoboxes are very nice looking and will entice people to read the articles or the infoboxes at the very least. I feel it will "make" people want to learn. I also disagree with you on the MySpace-y part, it's not very MySpace-y, the pictures are basically the same effect as the headers on the Main Page, just a different picture.-- † CM16 t c r 06:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course you disagree with me. The majority of what you do here is myspacey type edits. -Djsasso (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the fr infoboxes also. fr33kman t - c 06:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling re-opened

I have re-opened WikiProject Professional wrestling in the light of some other wrestling enthused users showing up. You may join if you'd like to. The talk page for the project is here. I guess you could call us the "sister project" for enWP's WikiProject Professional wrestling. Thanks for your time.-- † CM16 t c r 06:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No Way Out (2009)

No Way Out 2009 is scheduled to start in about 45 minutes. Please add the page to your watchlist as vandalism is likely to it over the next 24 hours.-- † CM16 t c r 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sisterlinks

OK, so today I noticed that {{Template:Sisterlinks}} has links that go to the en projects. However, don't you think that simple wikipedia's sister wikis are simple wikis where possible such as simple wikiquote, simple wiktionary and simple wikibooks? What are your opinions? I think we should change them. En projects are more the parents to simple. ѕwirlвoy  16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The ones that go to en where there is also a Simple project should be changed to go to the Simple project. (currently Simple Wiktionary, Wikiquote, and Wikibooks). Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
However, some articles do not exist on the SE sister projects. Just a few days ago, a mass replacement was made to solve this problem. Chenzw  Talk  11:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Proposals

First, I believe "Main Page" at the top should be rendered invisible. Second, I would like to propose a redesign of the Main Page. Third, in order to have a better "circulation" of articles, I believe good articles should be included with the very good articles. obentomusubi 00:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This current design is actually the result of a very recent redesign effort that took forever to finish. As for the good articles and very good articles comment, I believe that was all discussed in the redesign as well. -Djsasso (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then one request. This is my only complaint. The text that's supposed to be Hoefler Text doesn't show up right on my laptop, because I don't have Hoefler text. It shows up as Times New Roman, which I absolutely hate. Could you set it as Georgia or Garamond as a secondary font so I don't go crazy? Thanks! (bad sarcasm) obentomusubi 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion I started that led to the current Main Page design is located at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_38#Main_page_redesign_proposal. This discussion was started nearly half-a-year ago. — RyanCross (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't take it the wrong way. I like the concept and it looks better than anything I've created. (And it certainly looks better than what the regular English Wikipedia has presented). Why aren't there any news items, though? obentomusubi 20:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe User:Jennavecia created the current design for Simple English Wikipedia. Anyway, what do you mean by "new items"? — RyanCross (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
He said, "news items", so I assuming he means "In the news..." of English Wikipedia. TheAE talk 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Our userbase is too small for a constantly updated, quickly expiring section such as In the News. MC8 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, whoops. I have to agree with Microchip on this. Besides, VGA, GA, and DYK already take a lot of Simple Wikipedia's time. We don't need one right now. — RyanCross (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Icons?

Ack! I don't know which way to go? Should I abolish (deprecate) {{icon}} and replace it with another, more flexible system? Some other Wikipedias have managed to actually circumvent the overlapping of two different icons without going through {{icon}}. Help! obentomusubi 08:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of this page

As User:MiszaBot has been on a hiatus for 4 days and topics have been piling up on pages, I just got my bot to:

  • Archive 10+ threads from this page
    • If there are any pages in need of archiving, I can do that for the time being. Sorry Misza13... ;) Chenzw  Talk  11:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hi, how do I use a watchlist? If anyone knows I would appreciate the help--Primo (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At the top of every page there is a button which named watch. If you click this button, the page is on your watchlist. So you can see if someone edit the page. Regards, --Barras (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
But, when does it say when something has changed?--Primo (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You see it when the change is saved. You see it directly. See also: en:Help:Watching pages Regards, --Barras (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!--Primo (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Barras (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is there a Wikipedia:very good lists here? If not, should we make one? SimonKSK 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think yes. Regards, --Barras (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No I meant Very good list candidates. SimonKSK 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No there isn't. Maybe there should be one, it depends on how many lists would make it fr33kman t - c 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering if we could bring some FLs over and simplify them. SimonKSK 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Bring anything over as far as I'm concerned; as long as it's simplified and cited as enWP based! :) fr33kman t - c 22:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There's really no need. We barely have enough editors to sustain the current processes, and we don't need more strain on the community. –Juliancolton (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Juliancolton here. I really see no need for featured/very good lists at this point in time because we are currently having problems with our own VGA and GA article processes. Instead of trying to work on GLs and VGLs, why not try to get more involved in the VGA and GA processes? Razorflame 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fear of Change?

Hello everybody. In the short time I've been at the Simple English Wikipedia, I've noticed many people are denying proposals because either the community's too small or they're perfectly complacent with how the wiki's running right now. I don't mean to attack anybody at all, but could we all look past the present and think of the future? Could we all get over our fears of change and approve requests based on how it will better the community? An example of this is the Wikicup. A particular user stated that the Wikicup should be killed because it's too much of a hassle to take care of. Others shot down my star proposition because they liked things the way they were. In other discussions about Wikiprojects and a standardized grading system, people opposed because our wiki is too small. I don't know about you guys, but I feel that this wiki cannot expand if we do not expand our horizons and expand the activities we do here. Could we stop saying {{oppose}} in every single proposition and start saying {{support}}? I'm probably going to get stoned for saying such an "anarchic" statement to the community... obentomusubi 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, we are too small of a community currently to properly maintain things such as different ratings of articles and WikiProjects at this point in time. We currently only have about 15-20 active editors and another 15-20 semi-active editors. We just don't have the manpower to be able to keep a good portion of the proposals that you and other people have suggested afloat. If you were to get us some more active users, I wouldn't be saying this right now, but currently, we just don't have the manpower to do this kinds of things at this point in time. Also, it is not that we fear change; rather, it's that we fear that the change will cause things in this Wikipedia to stop running as smooth as they run now. Razorflame 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no "fear of change." We are too small. En has 162,441 active users, while we have 827 active users. SimonKSK 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we have even less then that. We only have around 40 active users that actively edit here at least twice a week. Razorflame 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a lot to do with difference. The growth of the English Wikipedia was mind-boggling, beyond all expectations when it started in 2001. It continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. Therefore change must happen very quickly. However, on other wiks and also here, the change is not so quick. I don't feel it's so much resistance to change, more a need to stay on focus. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly fr33kman t - c 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would agree, its not the change that is the problem. Its that for every minute wasted on frivolous things like tracking wikicups etc is a minute lost that could have been used towards our goal of making the encyclopedia bigger and more simple. -Djsasso (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
How about the people like me who aren't necessarily good at expanding or simplifying articles, and have the potential to do the behind-the-scenes work? Trust me... not participating in Wikicups or coming up with new ideas for this wiki is more of a waste to me because I rarely do tons of work on articles (with the exception of my copyedit of Romania). I can do the work for my proposals, so keep in mind that's not an issue. You don't need 1,000+ users to carry my ideas through, because I'd be the first person doing the work. obentomusubi 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
There's lots of behind-the-scenes stuff to do. Category sorting, deletion requests, interwikis, gnome work. But do bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia (yes, cliché), so the bulk of work that goes on here will be to articles. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That brings up two things, if you aren't here to work on articles why are you here? I mean I am far from the best article contributer, but to be honest this wiki needs people who do articles at this stage in its growth, we simply don't need the people that do the "fun" things like you (and I mean you in the general sense) can get away with on en because it has enough editors that people don't care as much if you treat the wiki as a social networking site. There are tonnes of things that need doing behind the scene here that have to do with our goal of building an encyclopedia and Peter mentions a bunch of them in his comment. The second being and what happens when your proposals do go through but you get tired of being here and then there is no one to continue them on? -Djsasso (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Case in point was when I did a search on "External Links" and changed all I found to "Other websites" and added {{complex}} tags so I could go back and clean them up later. Not glamourous, not fun, but it needed to be done by someone and it was easy to do (even if there were over 230 of them. There are a lot of things to do in mainspace. Finding spelling mistakes is one; changing complex words into ones from the wordlist is another. fr33kman t - c 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
While we are here to build this wiki, that does not mean we can't have fun. SimonKSKContradict me... 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Very true, which is why I vary my activities, but the project buidling should be somewhere near the top of the list, shouldn't it? fr33kman t - c 03:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, project building is on top of the list, not near it. But, we are a thriving community, and while our main goal is project building, we can always focus on other things. SimonKSKContradict me... 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised that my contributions (or lack of) would be criticized here. Why am I here? Because I thought my thoughts would matter, especially to a really small wiki. Surprise! Nobody really cares, because the wiki's too small, and I'm allegedly going to run away because I'm bored, and as long as my contributions aren't directly related to simplifying words, nobody really cares that much. obentomusubi 03:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

? You're here to help us, are you not? Or, are you here to only help yourself? Because while some of your ideas will get improved, some won't. Don't take it as a statement from us that we don't care, because that's wrong. And you know it. SimonKSKContradict me... 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I apologize. I'm feeling stressed right now. I had no right to say that. I'm glad you guys take seriously my suggestions. I'll keep helping out around here. Cheers, obentomusubi 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Understandable. SimonKSKContradict me... 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec x2)I never said you were going to run away cause you are bored. It's just we have people come quite often with ideas like this start them up and then disappear, leaving what few editors we have to clean them up finish them or whatever. People often compare us to english wikipedia and we are a very different community. The WikiProject I edit regularely over on en has more active editors than this entire wiki does, just to give some context. We just plain can't do some of these things. You thoughts do matter, but they have so far run contrary to consensus. Some of them will eventually be agreed with. Its just the nature of a wiki, sometimes you win sometimes you lose. -Djsasso (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. obentomusubi 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Shortcut}}

Why did {{shortcut}} change? Personally, I like the original one better. MathCool10 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same... –Juliancolton (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Must be one of my other edits that people don't like. You can easily revert them if you dislike them that much. obentomusubi 03:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A note: the old template didn't automatically change the header from "Shortcut" to "Shortcuts" when a second parameter was added. obentomusubi 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not that we dislike them. You should just discuss significant changes before making them. –Juliancolton (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Planet}}

See User talk:The Obento Musubi/Sandbox for my proposed redesign. It's mainly for organization purposes. Please, btw, disregard the citations. obentomusubi 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the template now until somebody complains. obentomusubi 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)