Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 58

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

No simple hyperlinks

Words that appear on our Wikipedia:Basic_English_combined_wordlist should probably not be hyperlinked, I'm guessing. I've begin to change pages that hyperlink city in the Category, Cities in Indiana [1]. It might be worthwhile to modify importing 'bots, so that our wordlist doesn't get hyperlinked? Terryeo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No links to the words on this list other than from this page? I'm not sure if that's the best. People should know what city means, yes, but it doesn't hurt to have links to them from some other pages, such as from cities, to get encyclopedic information on it. Toliar (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, good. From our combined list of simple or basic English words, Wikipedia:Basic_English_combined_wordlist, which words do you recommend be always linked for a full definition, which words do you sometimes recommend be linked, and which words are too simple to link? And, by the way, a dictionary is available to anyone online by typing "dictionary" into the address bar. I begin to do what I am doing based on what I assumed was basic, foundational datum. That being; there are English words that don't need a fuller explanation. So, what policy do you propose to employee in this sensitive area? Terryeo (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Really it comes down to context and common sense. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Which words are too simple to link? The BE 1500 words linked to Wiktionary, like "able", "about" and "before". Whereas in Wikipedia, even "A" has links from letter, braille, vowel, Guaraní alphabet, Corsican language, and Peter and the Wolf (its musical notation noted in "A").
People know the basic definition, but an encyclopedia offers much more information. I don't think any "simple" words in Wikipedia should be linked only from the list, a near {{orphan}}. One advantage of hyperlinks is that in an article, you can click relevant words within and read more about that. Toliar (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Influx of IPs

Hello,

in the last two or so days (since the beginning of the last week of February), we have seen an increase in the number of editors; most of them are unnamed IP editors. Here are a few comments:

  • If you are such an editor, and you want to contribute more to this project consider creating an account. Please note that only named editors can vote.
  • If you are here to simply vandalise or otherwise do bad things, do not think that not using an account makes you harder to track. Our admins regularly block IPs for vandalism.
  • If you are a regular editor and have the rollback priv, don't be afraid to use it; you have it for a reason.

Other than that, welcome to our quaint little project, don't be afraid to change things or make articles better. --Eptalon (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Welcome! On another related note, could we implement a sitenotice or something to try to get our new IP editors to register? Kennedy (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this not working? Any ideas? Kennedy (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Never mind. I see Chenzw fixed it :) Thanks Chenzw! Kennedy (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You have to logout to see it. In addition, when changing the site notice, MediaWiki:Sitenotice id must be incremented by 1. :D Chenzw  Talk  10:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Log in

Do I have to log in? How? Is it required? What do I do? 71.201.88.178 (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even anonymous users. However, a lot of your edits have been against our rules and I'd suggest (strongly) that you read the rules before you continue. fr33kman t - c 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to create an account, but we encourage you to. It's free and requires no personal info, but allows for more editing options. –Juliancolton (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you do of course not need to create an account. I have left a message on your talk page that tells you how to do this. The main benefit of creating an account is that you can move pages (once you are autoconfirmed, meaning after about 50 edits/3 days), and that you can vote (For proposed good and very good articles; as well as in elections of administrators/bureaucrats/checkusers). When you have contributed for some time, you can be elected administrator (see the full criteria for details); another thing that you can also obtain is the rollback privilege, to help fight vandalism. --Eptalon (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Please

Hi Majorly

Please could I be an administrator please.--Sam Locke (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you understood yet that the answer is no! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I be an admin?--Sam Locke (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Reason. Barras (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

xkcd

Congrats, Simple Wikipedia got a mention in the widely read webcomic xkcd (English Wikipedia article). Be vigilant, okay? :) Gracenotes (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

haha –Juliancolton (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
*Laughs* There is some truth behind it, though. :) TheAE talk 05:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
LMAO! :) --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Twitter Search link for you: [2] (Apparently, you guys are very popular in the Twitterverse right now!) Cmelbye (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Rats! I was just on my way over here to tell you about the comic, and Gracenotes beat me to it! AmiDaniel (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There is some discussion about our current DYK hooks on the Main Page as well ;) Chenzw  Talk  13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Man that makes me laugh. Specially seeing how many people have twittered it. -Djsasso (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We appear to be getting some new editors, but also some vandals. Please keep an eye on recent changes everyone! Majorly talk 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* Wow, that was funny. SimonKSK 14:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised at how little vandalism there is amongst the recent surge of activity. This xkcd could be a Very Good ThingTM. –Juliancolton (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I wondered when it would finally go nuts...its lunch hour in EST. Which would be why we jumped from not having much issue to having millions lol. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Just on coincidence, I came across another comic from the same site that mentions Wikipedia as a whole: Another xkcd. Razorflame 15:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There's another xkcd comic which shows a political rally with a man in the crowd holding up a "[citation needed]" sign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.51.10 (talkcontribs) 17:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

xkcd made me aware of this site. It's a great idea, as often wikipedia articles are too in depth for those looking for an elementary understanding on a topic. After coming here and realizing that my favorite wikipedia article wasn't covered on simple.wikipedia.org, I set out to write it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.51.10 (talkcontribs) 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

hah thats pretty much why I'm just visiting simple wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.95.205 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Toliar (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Switching Wikis

I think it would be a good idea to have some sort of link or function to switch between the simple and regular version of a wikipedia article, if it exists. Thoughts?

Most articles have interwiki links to do that. --Eptalon (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
If you look on the left hand side, there are links to switch between articles on the different language versions of Wikipedia. Not just between simple/en but between all the other languages if an article exists. -Djsasso (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Simple English is the first interwiki link on the English main page. Would it be positive for Simple English to be first on all English pages and vice versa? It's only a little down for English but quite a long way for some pages to Simple English. Toliar (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That would have to be discussed at English Wikipedia or Wikipedias of other languages and not here. Also, I think there have been discussions about this before, and most people seem to think that it's better to list interwikis in alphabetical order. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Every language has their own rules for this as we are all technically seperate communities. So for simple to be at the top at the english language wiki this would have to be requested there. But as for having English on top of our list. That is something that can be discussed, nothing is ever set in stone on a wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. That isn't a very clear way of doing it though, I saw the alternate languages list on the left and assumed that would switch to the simple language article in that particular language [so clicking English would effectively do nothing since I was browsing in English already]. I would still say that a dedicated link, possibly positioned inside the main area of each article, that automatically switches between simple/standard pages in the language that the user is already viewing so as not to bias or give preference to any language in particular. 62.56.76.189 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple News

Hello, Simple News is running a bit behind: BG7 is off on a wikibreak. We need to get a new edition out. Please see WP:SN for details. Next issue is to be delivered on (or around) Monday 2nd March. If you wish to contribute to it, please have your articles/lists/notifications etc ready for Sunday 1st March at the latest. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But where do we put them? Chenzw  Talk  13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Good question! It is entirely up to you. I'd recommend creating sub-pages at Wikipedia:Simple News/Chenzw for whatever. Once you have wrote an article there, put a link to it, and let us know at Wikipedia:Simple News/Newsroom - One of the editors (or anyone really) will put it onto the next issue! Regards, Kennedy (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
You can see my subpage here. Kennedy (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The next interviews for QandA are (in order where possible):

  • User:Kennedy
  • User:FastReverter
  • User:ChristianMan16
  • User:Swirlboy39

You can add your name to this list if you want to be interviewed! Kennedy (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GOOD NEWS! I'm back :) Now, where was I... *goes to resume service as normal* Goblin 12:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm back :)

Hey all, I've come back after my month's absence :)

Just wondering if people could fill me in on anything important that's happened in that time and also to check i'm ok to jump in where i left off, nominally DYK, Simple News, Bot Running and article writing ;) (I hear the Wikicup has been cancelled so i've left that out ;)

It's good to be back :)

Thanks,

Goblin 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We've had exposure in xkcd, a popular webcomic that has sprouted a lot of new editors, both unnamed and named. Furthermore, Kennedy was promoted to bureaucrat and Fr33kman and Claimgoal currently have open RfAs (this is not canvassing). I would suggest you read up the Simple talk, Administrator's noticeboard, and requests for Checkusers to get caught up :). Cheers, Razorflame 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I'd seen most of that already in my catching up by myself, but i'm too lazy to do /all/ of it ;) Cheers, Goblin 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Chage to template

I made a small change to the warning template (diff) because, as a native English speaker, I found it difficult to understand. I believe the word "practice" is easy to understand by people with a simple command of English, while the current wordage ("try out changing") is not. Furthermore, the second comma is necessary to maintain proper separation of that phrase. Thoughts? EhJJ (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Practice is in the word list so I think that the change would make sense. I'd agree that the comma should also be there. fr33kman t - c 18:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal-Questions in RFAs

I'm proposing the addition of standard optional questions in RFAs. Some people know them from EN: What will you do with the tools, what do you think are your best contributions and have you been in any major conflicts. I think that they would be a help in evaluating the candidate at RFA.

Support

  1. Shapiros10 21:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Weak Support I don't know how fixed or unfixed the RfA process is at the moment, but I do think questions should be introduced. I don't think we should verbatim copy en.wp's and I also don't think that whether a candidate answers the questions should weigh in on people's opposes, if you get what I mean. Goblin 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support - What Gobs said. SimonKSK 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support - Why not if they're just optionnal. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Because, as I stated below, you can say they're optional all you want, but people are going to treat them as mandatory. Either way (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think so. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    As long as they are not mandatory. Yes, I read your points Either way. Kennedy (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC) - Actually, I'm not entirely sure its needed yet. Perhaps in the future. Kennedy (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose If someone wants to ask questions optionally, I say go for it. However, I feel that having mandatory questions only encourages candidates to be groomed and coached towards adminship. A good nomination statement will cover these kinds of questions for the most part anyway. Either way (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    There not mandatory, they are added to new RfAs and then the candidate can choose to answer them or not ;) Or we could add them into the guidelines to be answered in the nomination statement? Goblin 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Right, "not mandatory." If the questions are there, they will be de facto mandatory. People will be opposed if they don't answer the questions, or people will refuse to vote until they see answers to the questions. You can say they're not mandatory, but they're mandatory. Either way (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Can you read? It states quite clearly standard optional questions. (of course you can read ;) ) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 22:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    But are they really? I agree with Either way, people can say they are optional but they really are not. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I agree. I can't recall a single succesful RFA on enWP where the candidate refused to answer them. Here, might be different fr33kman t - c 22:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I don't see it really helping much. The community generally knows the candidates fairly well and they already have their trust, or not. It helps on enWP where there are thousands of editors and you can't know every candidate well or even at all. fr33kman t - c 22:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. What Either way said. A statement is all that's needed on a wiki like this. On the English Wikipedia, the questions are quite helpful, considering the wiki is so huge that a lot of candidates will be unknown. Here, however, the community is small, and we get to know regulars quite quickly. We know of the disputes they get into. We know which areas they work in. So the first three questions are moot in the vast majority of cases, and questions can always be asked by others in the comments section. Standardising questions isn't a good way forward, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. This is still a relatively small project (compared to en) and as PeterSymonds said we get to know the regulars and what areas they work in. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per above. We generally know all of our regulars, and which ones would benefit from the tools. Questions are unnessesary.--Fairfield Deleted? 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per PeterSymonds. Razorflame 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Either way and Peter. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  8. Sorry but no freakin' way. Too many editors on enwiki abuse this "feature" of RFAs by piling on unnecessary pointless questions, that help trip candidates up. Some questions, like "How old are you?" are equally contentious, and I absolutely oppose anything like that here. Majorly talk 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  9. Strongly oppose - Per Either way.-- † CM16 t c r 04:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  10. Strong oppose per Peter and Majorly. Chenzw  Talk  10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  11. Oppose In a community this small people already know everyone and questions would just be used to trip people up. -Djsasso (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • People are opposing on the basis that people would not pass an RFA for not answering them. I don't see the problem. You could ask people questions anyway on RFA's in the comment section, and the person wouldn't have to answer but the one who asked the questions would probably oppose. I don't see anything wrong. Weird.Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I actually opposed because I don't think it would add anything to the process. fr33kman t - c 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Most people then =D Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I opposed because I don't think they are really needed at this point in our development. We know the candidates for adminship, and we know the criteria that we set upon them, so therefore, no need to have people ask questions about things if we already know the strengths and weaknesses of said candidate. It would kind of be redundant. Razorflame 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle?

Hello, is there a version of Twinkle on Simple Wikipedia? The Twinkle script or gadget makes it easier to mark pages for deletion and warn vandals. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can check my User:Fr33kman/monobook.js file for the code to use. Not all templates are in place however, so you might just want to use the "Vandal Warner" under gadgets in My Preferences. Feel free to use User talk:Fr33kmanTWTest for testing. :) fr33kman t - c 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sunstar NW XP ban

I just noticed Sunstar NW XP (talk · contribs) pop up around here. I am highly suspicious that he is connected to the Sunholm/Sunfazer/SunStar vandal who has socked at and been banned from numerous wikis (particularly en.). A good discussion of his history can be found here on en.. According to Lar, a checkuser on en., this user is a perpetual problem globally.

The Sunstar NW XP vandal here is following patterns of the other examples of this vandal: a love for templates as well as a "I know vandals, I share IPs with vandals, but I'm not a vandal" defense that basically every other Sunholm related vandal has claimed. Because of this being a global issue (it's not just an en. ban, this stretches beyond just en.), I propose that we ban Sunstar NW XP and any current and future versions of this vandal. Either way (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms this is indeed Sunholm from enwiki, where he is banned. I did think it amusing one of his first actions was nominating a sockpuppet template for deletion. In any case, I endorse a ban. We do not need nonsense here. Majorly talk 13:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Endorse ban - per Majorly's CU check and the template on User:Sunstar NW XP's claiming it is not a sock. fr33kman t - c 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral leaning to support The template in the user's page is a bit unusual, but based on his edits, the user has done nothing wrong, or disruptive. Based on the en page, the user wants to change. SimonKSK 19:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
comment I suppose we could use this as a opportunity to try out the one-strike proposal with no further discussion needed if they fall foul of it; ie: any admin would just ban them. But the first actions of this user were not good and claiming not to be who they have been proven to be, smacks of a poor future, so I'd still support a ban. fr33kman t - c 19:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the pattern with the user. Generally good faith edits on one account, and not so good faith edits on another (we call it good hand, bad hand). This is a user that's been blocked and banned many times over, there is no reason why he should be allowed to edit on any wikipedia. Either way (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Good enough for me: ban fr33kman t - c 20:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Does he have any vandal accounts here? If he does not, then no, we should not ban him. We should checkuser him regularly, though. SimonKSK 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A known cross-wiki vandal should be banned in my opinion. Has he ever been brought up at meta for a cross-wiki block/ban Majorly? You would probably know best since you are the most active on meta. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
He's banned on Meta, but I don't know of any cross-wiki ban. Majorly talk 22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I would think about giving him a one-strike rule. If he doesn't change, I Strongly support a ban on him. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to implement the ban here? Checkuser has confirmed it, and consensus seems to be leaning towards ban. Thanks, Either way (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Community ban implemented.--Fairfield Deleted? 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not that I agree. I suspect meatpuppetry with this user, from what I know. From what I hear, the user has recruited people to back him up, as a form of meatpuppetry. Give him a break. I wasn't recruited by him, but a ban is overkill. And to Either way, "they" are a perpetual problem, not "this user" - it's meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry. --Whilyach (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Should also add that they inappropriately shared the passwords between accounts, so they're basically role accounts. Majorly, sorry for their stupidity. Thank god it's the end of that. But let's not forget that John Bambenek was as much of a discussion as this. --Whilyach (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Basic English and concepts

English should be written simple but difficult concepts are allowed, here... naturally though there will be unsimple words in the article which don't comply with strict Basic English limitations. Is there any way around this or would just doing everything appropriately (wikt: etc.) be enough? -- Mentifisto 23:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are asking. Are you asking if it is alright to write pages like polypropelene and other such complex subjects, or are you talking about writing simple things in complex English? A little clarification could help XD. Razorflame 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The former, yes. I mean, I'm writing about philosophy but it seems even that word isn't 'simple' in Basic English. -- Mentifisto 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course you can write pages about complex topics if they are written in as simple of English as they can be written in. I myself have written several such pages before in the past :). Cheers, Razorflame 00:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Then those pages are excepted from standard Basic English-checking tests as long as they're generally simple? -- Mentifisto 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If the title of a page is not simple, but the content is, then yes. Razorflame 00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The content contains similar technical words as the title. -- Mentifisto 00:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In that case you explain them inline or link to articles that explain them fr33kman t - c 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Any words that cannot be simplified should be explained as best you can in Simple English. :). Hope this helps :). Razorflame 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
<- So, to clarify explicitly, if an article needs to be lower than US grade 8 but isn't because of too much inherent technicality is the grade output ignored? -- Mentifisto 00:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Just try to make it as simple as it can possibly be made and that should be good enough, espeically if it is about a topic that is highly specific and technical. XD. Razorflame 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
An example might be: Women who get endometriosis (a disease of the womb) often have pain, dysmenorrhea (painful periods), dyspareunia (pain during sex), dysuria (urination that is often and painful), dyschezia (pain emptying their bowels) and can become infertile (unable to have babies). fr33kman t - c 00:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You could also link infertile to the Simple English Wiktionary, or just write cannot have babies instead of infertile XD. Razorflame 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Very true Razor; in fact that whole sentence could be written without the technical jargon, but it gives a hint as to what to do with words and terms that can't be excluded. :) fr33kman t - c 00:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Hello. This community so far has not "agreed" on a vocabulary (in the form of a word list) that can be considered simple. So, the very basic idea is that if you use difficult words, you explain them in some way; either in an article linked (perhaps SEWikt, if it is just about word meaning) or in the article itself. Defining simple is a discussion that recently was on Simple talk; as a result, two Myspell dictionaries (2.500 and 6.500 words) were created; these contain words that can be assumed to be known. At the time, they were made by selecting the top X words of certain categories (such as Gutenberg texts, or words from the media). Again, a word not being in the respective list does not mean you cannot use the word, it simply means the reader is unlikely to know it (and therefore you probably need to explain it)--Eptalon (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, something else: do not trust those grade level calculations; as they are simply bean-counting approaches. Scientific articles need scientific language; the important thing is that the words used are clear (in that they ideally only have one meaning). If they sound too technical, explain them.--Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Caffeine (a good article) for an example how a scientific subject could be treated; Little Red Riding Hood is one of the easiest-to-understand articles we have; for more recent articles, lobotomy, or even hedonism (which is a concept form philosophy) --Eptalon (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You may also find three spellcheckers at addons.mozilla.org (search for "simple english"); they may be installed with a simple click from within your Mozilla (Firefox, Thunderbird) browser. Some of them are based on Basic, some are not. The idea, as Eptalon says, is to give you a ballpark idea of how "simple" is a word; if the spellchecker underlines it, then the reader may not know recognize it by sight; therefore, you either explain it online or else make a crossreference to the wiktionary. Hopefully these dicts will converge in the future. Good luck, Lwyx (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
direct link EhJJ (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Why is it when I write a flag {{flagicon|Afghanistan}} and then write after the flag [[Afghanistan]], it shows the word at the bottom of the flag, not at the top? Afghanistan Afghanistan Why can't you make the word written next to the flag, like any other Wikipedia does? 75.31.249.94 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. It seems to have worked right there with the text right next to the flag. Maybe where you are using it the word is too big for the line and has to move down to the line below? Either way (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Proposal

Now that Abuse Filter is now ready for testing on small and medium wikis, I want to make a proposal for installing it on this wiki. Anyone want it? I'll put a configuration here to start. It's incomplete, but it can be changed. Techman224Talk 02:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Configuration for Abuse Filter on Simple English Wikipedia (draft). Fell free to edit it.

Allow everyone to view the filters and logs

For '*' (All logged out and logged in users) group

abusefilter-view abusefilter-log abusefilter-log-detail

Allow administrators to modify filters

abusefilter-modify

Create a group called abusefilter, and let administrators add and remove the group from users

Give abusefilter group same right as administrators

abusefilter-modify

Your link doesn't go anywhere. What exactly does it do? -Djsasso (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong link. Fixed Techman224Talk 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's installed on test wikipedia if you want to look at it. Techman224Talk 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A few questions:

  1. What type of vandalism are we planing to counter with this and how? Disallowing new users from blanking a page in the mainspace or just making the filter flag that edit for review? Is there serial vandalism that the abuse filter could deal with?
    Abuse Filter is designed for the most obvious vandalism, like if someone says gay or fuck, or blanking the page. It can do more complex filtering too. Techman224Talk 18:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Are we going to enable blocking?
    I'm going to say not now, just to have a trial with it first with just log, warn, disallow, and tag. When we are more comfortable with it, we can turn on block autoconfirm, blocking, and removing from groups which can be granted. Techman224Talk 18:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. When should a filter be allowed to be made private?
    This shouldn't happen normally, but if extreme measures are needed about privacy, then it can been hidden from the public. Techman224Talk 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. How many admins have the technical knowledge to edit and create filters without locking down the entire website? Will the filters be effective?
    I have basic knowledge and I can operate it, I don't know about the other admins, but if they want, they can copy the text in a filter to use it as a template for a new filter. Techman224Talk 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a read over the config later see if there's anything I think that needs changing. This could work if we think/plan it out properly --Chris 12:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: is it alright for IPs to view the filters and the log? Doesn't seem very advisable. Chenzw  Talk  12:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
All the other projects have all users access the Abuse log and view the filters. Filters can be made private on a individual basics however . Techman224Talk 16:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to add, it's all right to let all users access the detailed logs. It doesn't release any personal info. Techman224Talk 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is it?-- † CM16 t c r 19:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It basically allows a user to set an inappropriate action, like saying "fuck", and tell the abuse filter to take action. It can log the action, tag the edit, warn the user, block the action, remove the user from the autoconfirmed group for a couple of days, remove the user from groups that are granted manually (like sysop, rollback), block the user, and even do a range block. However, abuse filter has a option that can limit which actions can be taken, so we will discuss it. Techman224Talk 00:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with having the abuse filter deal with general vandalism. From my personal experience with admin/antivandal bots safely detecting general vandalism is much much harder than just serial vandalism. If this was only to be used for serial vandals (do we even have any?) I might support it, but detecting any vandalism more than just a new user blanking a page, causes to much false positives. I'm also still not convinced of your technical ability to safely use the filter. --Chris 02:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the filter is only effective against serial vandalism if it can block (though it can throttle page moves etc, to reduce the damage). --Chris 02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tech Configuration

I've posted a configuration to be applied when we want Abuse Filter to be installed. Change this if there's a change in the proposal. Techman224Talk 01:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

//User Rights for Everyone
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['abusefilter-view'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['abusefilter-log'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['abusefilter-log-detail'] = true;

//User rights for Administrators
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['abusefilter-modify'] = true;
$wgAddGroups['sysop'] = array( 'abusefilter' );

//For the New Abuse Filter Group
$wgGroupPermissions['abusefilter']['abusefilter-modify'] = true

//So that only these actions can be done
$wgAbuseFilterAvailableActions = array( 'flag', 'throttle', 'warn', 'disallow', 'blockautopromote', 'tag');

Well I just ran into the abuse filter on another wiki. Won't let me create my user page because the letters "ass" are in my username...*sigh* I hate when webpages do that to me. That being said I think it will let me once I am autoconfirmed. -Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is the very reason why we shouldn't be trying to use it to stop general vandalism. It also comes under my point about lack of technical knowledge. The person who wrote that filter should have used \bass or \bass\b instead of just ass, then you'd still be allowed to create your userpage (for those of you that don't know regexes \b means word boundary i.e. foo will match both "foo" and "barfoobar" however \bfoo\b will only match "foo" (or "foo!!!" or "..foo...", but lets not get into that :D )). --Chris 00:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Current Mainpage VGA

I'd like to propose that the current mainpage VGA always be semi-protected against IP vandalism for the duration of its being on the mainpage. The VGA on the mainpage alway's gets a good amount of vandalism and it seems prudent that whatever the current VGA on the mainpage is, it should always be semi-protected. fr33kman t - c 02:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support fr33kman t - c 02:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The main page is the main exposure for someone to do this. This is the one page that definately should not be protected. -Djsasso (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Reasonable proposal, but we could just as easily revert, warn, and move on. There's usually not enough vandalism to justify protection, anyway. –Juliancolton (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments

My viewpoint here is that the VGA linked to the mainpage always gets a lot of vandalism. Almost always from IP editors. If we were to semi this page it would lessen the amount of vandalism and hence the disruption to the project. Whilst, Wikipedia is indeed the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it might be prudent to protect the pages that receive the most amount of vandalism. Sniper has received a lot of unneeded edits and vandalism this week; as does every other currently offered VGA on the mainpage. It's something to consider, at least. fr33kman t - c 02:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

btw: It currently is semi protected, per Fairfield (because of vandalism) fr33kman t - c 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally there are enough people around with those pages on their watchlist that the cons of protecting the page outweight the pros of protecting it. But thats just my opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
And a respected and valid opinon it is! Still, preemtive protection prevents reactive intervention. fr33kman t - c 02:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we protect these articles way too quickly as it is. Sniper has been a rare exception where I'd actually say that the vandalism was in excess. For the most part, though, we're protecting when we can just revert and block and move on. Either way (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

i'd fully agree with you if we had more editors, but we are a small wiki and sooner or later, vandal edits are going to slip by us. fr33kman t - c 03:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
That's where flagged revs comes in :) --Chris 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugh, I hate flagged revs. Semi would be better, than people looking through IP edits to see which is good or not. SimonKSK 01:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
How about en:Wikipedia:Flagged Protection? --Chris 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea! Do you think it could work with our limited numbers? Would an autoconfirmed user be able to filter for it in RecentChanges (or a cat?) fr33kman talk 02:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple News Delivery

Next Delivery: 3rd April 2011

change
You may have noticed this bar. It is used to keep track of the next delivery of Simple News. You can change it by clicking the change link. (Rather obvious, no?) If you want to display it somewhere, put {{Next delivery}} where you want it. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to sa this without getting accused of something but here goes, can we have the date on this written the American way, the date everywhere else is the British way. This way we also are balanced.-- † CM16 t c r 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Erm, I don't think so... It's better to have it the same in every place, and the British way is recognised as standard afaik... Sorry. Goblin 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Whats the difference? Kennedy (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
British way = Monday 2nd March 2009 --- American way = Monday, March 2nd, 2009 (see the difference)-- † CM16 t c r 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Not that it really matters but, its not just the British way. 1.9 billion Commonwealth citizens vs. 300 million Americans. That being said I think it should stay the same as the others for consistancy. -Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that statement to me just sounded Britain biased. but whatever, ok.-- † CM16 t c r 23:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well CM. I knew the difference between the layouts, but what I meant was, whats the difference depending on which one is used? You say Djsasso is Britain biased, but he pointed out the figures. More people know it the "British" way than the American way. We are not "British" biased. You are American biased. Think carefully before you make comments like that please. Kennedy (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
My point was there are more than just uk-en that does it that way, ca-en, aus-en etc. Being part of the Commonwealth does not mean we are British. Canada stopped being British 142 years ago for example. India is generally not considered British either, and it left British contol 60 something years ago. I just get frustrated when the small minority of Americans on the planet always try to push their views on the vast majority of others. Unfortunately on wikipedia the majority of editors are American which is one of the systemic biases that wikipedia has. One of the things I see alot is how often on en we get American editors getting really upset that ice hockey articles use the spelling centre and defence and cry about how the articles are biased by Canadians... when again most of the english speaking world spells it the way Canadians do...-Djsasso (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I could be (and hope I am) wrong but it sound like you calling Americans Dumb and Cry-babies, Dj. Which is a Personal attack.-- † CM16 t c r 08:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Although, yes, he is speaking down to Americans (and perhaps an attack on them), but he isn't doing it against any user in particular. So, it probably wouldn't be considered a PA. In an unrelated comment, what is the point of the template? Just to tell when it will be? I don't see the excitement... TheAE talk 08:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
PA?!?! I cannot fathom a response to that, so I will move on... AE: I mostly created it so that we don't need to update lots of pages, just one instead. I just thought I'd let people know incase they wanted it to remind them. Completely optional. :) Kennedy (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the Idea of the template, Kennedy, and ,Kennedy, I'm not trying to start a fight with that PA response I just HATE it when some Europeans talk down to Americans. I believe that's understandable, as long as I don't take it to far.-- † CM16 t c 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tharnton Socking and ban

Because of this I think Tharnton's ban should be lengthened, or even lengthened to indef. For speeding ban lengthening, here is a direct to ban link. Tharnton obviously won't mature in a year.

  • I support indefinitely banning Tharnton. ѕwirlвoy  18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per nom/SwirlBoy. Goblin 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with changing it to indef, but I would rather re-evaluate it when the year is up. If he keeps doing this through the year then change to indef. But if this is a one off, we might as well leave it at a year. -Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - SimonKSK 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Djsasso, re-evaluate first. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per Swirlboy. Barras (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Djsasso, review; it is unlikely that they will discontinue making sockpuppets however fr33kman t - c 20:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    You don't know that, fr33kman. I have seen that before from sockers, like Kalajan. They say they won't make any, but they do. SimonKSK 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    I think a careful reread of what I wrote will lead you to believe that we are actually saying the same thing. I too don't think they will stop making socks fr33kman talk 08:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Yep...anyone who socks is subject for an immediate indefinite ban, IMHO. Razorflame 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Shapiros10 22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Razor. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 22:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Æåm Fætsøn /ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/ 05:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I though it was the default reaction but unfortunately I Support.-- † CM16 t c r 08:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I just reread and I found out I mis-read, I Oppose per Djsasso.-- † CM16 t c r 08:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Djsasso. This reminds me of when judges give criminals 10 life sentences. The user is banned, we don't been to double ban. TheAE talk 08:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Long bans (longer than 6 months) are counter-productive. Tharnton seems to be young; he now has some time-out/wikibreak where he has the time to think about his actions, and to think about how to interact with this community. If at the end of his current ban time he still has not matured, re-banning him will be easy, because he will probably give us a reason to do so. On another note: How many editors that now edit SimpleWP will be around then? --Eptalon (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I agree with both sides, but socking is a big no-no. Kennedy (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    All we need to handle we can with the current ban (blocking a sock of a banned user is no problem) --Eptalon (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    I know we can deal with the problem, but the fact he did it, moves my opinion from a neutral one to a weak support of an indef ban. Kennedy (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Long versus complex

(moved from my talk page) At the top of Recent changes, I think the Long pages link next to Simplification should be removed and use a list of Complex pages rather than long as the examples shown. I suggest this because long does not mean complex. Toliar (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea - at the moment it looks as if pages need simplification because they are long not complex. Many of the pages on the Long page list are quite simple. Lets replace the Long page list with a complex page list.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki

I understand that simple English Wikipedia has a number of articles on simple words. But for articles such as upstaging, which should really be tidied up and then moved to wikt:simple:upstage, is there a process to do that? m:Transwiki doesn't really explain how to do so unless you're an admin on the receiving wiki, and only enWP has en:Template:Copy to Wiktionary. EhJJ (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a list of articles that you would like transwikied to the Simple English Wiktionary, I can help you with that. I am both an importer here and an admin on the Simple English Wiktionary, so it really shouldn't be too much of a hassle for me to do something like that. Cheers, Razorflame 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll let you know (on your talk page). EhJJ (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I found {{Move to Wiktionary}} (aka {{dicdef}}). Seems there's a good number of articles listed at Category:Move to Wiktionary. EhJJ (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Very_good_articles/by_date

The above page is very out of date, with the dates not updated since November 08. Can anyone remember what was up when, or is there a way to work it out?

If not, do we really need the columns of when they were displayed? They are in a rotation after all...

Furthermore, there are two articles not yet into rotation, which I will get into the rotation shortly, but for this two would need to be lost: the two that have been in the longest?

Finally, shouldn't all the articles be in rotation at the same time? It really doesn't matter when they get shown and when...

Sorry for the jumbledness of that post - i'm still working on about 4 hours of sleep!

If you need anything explaining, just ask!

Cheers,

Goblin 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rearranged it a little; now we have a table for those demoted to GA, and those demoted to regular article. I have done the same for the respective GA page.--Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Cheers :) Also, see below section for other things... I think this is safely a "case-closed". Thanks, Goblin 16:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Japanese

I'd like someone to translate the BE 1500 words into Japanese. I want kanji and kana. No romaji, please. I also would like a native speaker say the words so I can learn the pitch accent. Perhaps someone could go to the English Wikipedia and ask a native Japanese speaker. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article on the Japanese Wikipedia and checked the external links there? ja:ベーシック英語 EhJJ (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but have you checked the external links? If so, I think you misunderstood my point. I want to learn Japanese. This isn't really meant to be productive; it's just for my own interests. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 00:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud you for wanting to learn Japanese, it seems to me that you should put more personal effort into it. You should be able to get a Japanese-English dictionary (either paper or electronic) fairly cheaply. Alternately, there are many dictionary/translators online. I think most editors are here to build an encyclopedia, not read 1500 words in Japanese for you. EhJJ (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PVGA/PGA process

I've probably brought it up before, but I'd like to propose that all propositions take place on 1) the page WP:PVGA/WP:PGA, and 2) an article's subpage. The real data would be at the subpage, but the discussions/votes may be visible on the PVGA/PGA pages. That way, it will be easier to keep all discussion/votes in one place. obentomusubi 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be simpler, not easier to combine the WP:P(V)GA pages together. The reason is that it makes it more complicated to organize the page and it may lag the server or take a long time to load the page (depending on your internet connection). The current process is running smoothly and there is no urgent need to change it. --§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 07:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, cool. obentomusubi 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adopt

I'm a new user here, but a pretty experienced user on the normal English wiki. Is there adoption here, too? Queenie (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Theres no organised adoption system really. I'm sure if you want to be adopted someone will offer. That being said, if you are experienced at en.wiki, you won't really need that much adoption. (I assume you meant you wanted adopted, or do you want to adopt users?) Kennedy (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to be adopted or to adopt, I was just interested and I didn't know. Queenie (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We actually do have an inactive adoption program. Nobody uses it. — RyanCross (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maths

Hello all. I found out about the Simple English wikipedia from xkcd, and I am very new here. However I very much like the idea and find it fun and relaxing to edit those articles I am qualified to edit.

I have been editting the physics articles with a slant on astronomy/particle physics. Today, I started editing the article on Neutron Stars and came across an issue I'm not sure what to do about and about which I can find no guidance in any of the Simple English wikipedia pages and I would like some help on it.

The issue is maths and what place it has in this wikipedia.

In writing the Neutron Star article, I started on a section about their rotation. In writing about their rotation, I remembered that there was a lovely, simple and very educational argument about how to work out their maximum rotation speed. It's a back of the envelope calculation, as we scientists would call it, an argument that focuses on giving an idea of what's going on rather than any real truth, well within the scope of any older secondary school student in the United Kingdom studying their A-levels and something exciting that shows them that even simple A-level physics can be used on something as complicated and exotic as neutron stars.

In terms of this wikipedia's understanding at a simple level to foreign speakers, it's nice but not really necessary and would probably only confuse, as I can explain the crux of what's going on well enough with words without using the maths.

In terms of writing an accurate article, a back of the envelope calculation is not really very appropriate and they do not seem to appear in the main English wikipedia.

In terms of writing an informative article, I think it's a very valid showing what's happening.

I'm confused about exactly which part of this wikipedia's mission takes precedence over others and where I should be pitching my article.

Also, if I to write the educational section, it would be nice to have some way of flagging it as educational only and also some way of flagging the level of education needed, in a way that is internationally understood.

Aphenine (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically put, we aim for people who are ESL students, new English speakers, children, learning disabilities and people who just plain need it explained to them in simpler English to be able to read our pages and understand them. They may need to do some additional work to understand some articles and science and maths are such. You can use math here, but it needs to be explained in terms that the reader can at least get an understanding of what is going on. We have articles on such things as Quantum mechanics for instance. Feel free to edit pages and to use maths, but try to keep in your head "how do I explain this in simple terms?" The people who read our pages are not unitellegent, they just have issues with English; they may be a certified genius in their native language (or they may not be), just like anyone else. Hope this helps, feel free to ask questions :) fr33kman talk 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I very much can understand you; I have written/collaborated in many scientific articles here. To put it in very short words, the Simple in Simple English refers to the language, not the concepts; I am a Comp. Sci. person, so all the maths I had were applied maths, in other words, maths done to solve a real-world problem. I recently added something to the Fourier transform article (Fourier transforms are mainly used to model functions/data over time, like is the case with voice or handwriting recognition; I presume in physics there will be similar applications; since I am not a physicist I cannot talk about them, though). When writing for the crowd here, first focus on the applications, like in an intro; in a section below, there is nothing against giving maths (or mathematical proofs). Mathematics is perhaps the only language that is universally understood (once you agree on notation). --Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

LGBT-related articles

Are LGBT articles here allowed, or is it "taboo" since many children read the Simple wiki? I would like to create California Proposition 8 (see en) and possibly Hawaii House Bill 444 (see en), but I don't want to anger anybody, so I'm asking the community for permission. Cheers, obentomusubi 04:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the LBGT movement in some things but, we're not censored so go ahead.-- † CM16 t c 05:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
They are most certainly allowed, heck I'd, personally, say they were encouraged!! I am proudly pro LGBT even though I'm a Christian (I believe in the complete and utter seperation of church and state and human rights for all!) :) fr33kman talk 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Okey dokers, so I'll try to keep it as NPOV as possible. Thanks! :) I'm actually debating HB 444. I don't think it's notable enough to be here. En maybe, but not here. obentomusubi 05:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
My personal preferences are for people of the other sex; other people prefer those of the same sex; Most people think there is a free will, so it is not mine to judge what others do in their free time. You might also look at Wikipedia has information you might not want to see, our content disclaimer. If you happen to get any such topic to a decent standard article, do not be afraid to propose it for Good or Very Good article. --Eptalon (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hear hear! To each their own, but equal rights for all! fr33kman talk 16:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
@Obento: If it is notable enough for enWP, why not here? Notable is notable (there are no levels) fr33kman talk 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Error

I tried replying on my user talk and got this message:

Database error From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "Revision::insertOn". MySQL returned error "1223: Can't execute the query because you have a conflicting read lock (10.0.0.234)".

What's up?!-- † CM16 t c 05:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's some problem with the database servers. Should be fixed now. Chenzw  Talk  09:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This sometimes happens whenever they are working or updating the database servers...just wait a couple of minutes to hours and the problem should get fixed fairly quickly. Cheers, Razorflame 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK's death?

I believe that DYK is in its last breaths, and I'm beginning to believe that this is a failed experiment. It has been updated once in the last month, and the nomination page doesn't show much activity. Some say it is not dying, just inactive at the moment, however, I feel like it is something that is on its way out. Like the Wiki Cup, it was strong for a bit, but trickled down. Perhaps it is time to consider letting it go the way of the Wiki Cup? Either way (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's backlogged and not being maintained like it should. Editors have tried and failed to save it before, so I think it's time to let it go. Let us not forget that it's transcluded onto the site's main page, so a poorly-maintained template looks bad for us. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(E/C)Thanks for telling the whole community what you feel (rather than just people on irc). I get your point but I don't really agree. It's inactive but if we can get a couple of volounteers (I don't mind doing it) to revive it again, it'll work, I'm sure. Thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. If there is consensus here, we can remove it (tag as historical) until we have the necessary amount of editors for upkeep. Personally, I think removing the accreditation was what killed it. Synergy 21:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Also remember that before things such as GA and VGA have gone without activity. And to quote Pete's favourite template... {{sofixit}}. Goblin 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the change this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the inactivity in this area. I used to be active here (real life concerns were in the way), and I'll be happy to be more active again. I just finished doing another update. Any other help from now on would be appreciated. Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with everyone on this. It is a project that can easily be revived if it gets the appropriate number of users to start updating it, and I would not mind doing this for you all :). Let me know if there is anything that I can do. Cheers, Razorflame 03:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion we need:
  • Either another change to the rules requiring less editors - i.e. one can review/move/update
  • Or more editors get involved with the review/move/update process.
  • And more editors nominating articles so that we can make updates once a day every day at a minimum.
  • And either more editors nominating photographs with their hooks.
  • Or the reviewer/mover/updater may add an image without further review.
It might seem a lot, but in actual fact it's not that much. The whole process could be run with three editors as it is - a nominator, a reviewer, and a mover and updater - and could be run with just one. This would however provide inappropriate results and so a team of about 5 minimum would be an optimum level. Just my thoughts. Thanks, Goblin 16:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with having just one review everything, because I do sometimes see hooks moved or removed that could have used more input. Not sure how we can get more people involved: it's a volunteer project, so people can drift towards whatever they want, and I think that our corps of editors have each sort of found their own "niche" or place on here. I'd have no objects to reviewers/updaters being able to add images as needed. I know I did that awhile back when I did an update because there wasn't anything ready to go with an image. Either way (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It used to be so much easier. You would find a decent article, find a hook, thats it. Now it has to be of a certain length, and VGA's are no longer allowed. Its become increasingly difficult to find an article you can use. Kennedy (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps change it back? I think that VGA articles should be included because the purpose of DYK is to "hook" people into reading the encyclopedia and good articles. As long as that goal is acomplished does it really matter which article it came from (as long as it meats basic requirements)? fr33kman talk 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps expand it to include PVGA and PGA articles also since they mostly almost meet the criteria? Just a thought fr33kman talk 16:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we move this discussion to the related talk page (if nobody has any issues with this), as this discussion could get quite long, and probably could do with not being on this page. I personally think that either VGAs and GAs and PVGAs/PGas become allowable again, or alleviate the length requirement. Cheers, Razorflame 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to mention something, we never allowed VGAs at all (iirc), and GAs, PGAs and PVGAs have always been allowed. I think we should remove the lower limit and simply say those with a stub tag are not allowed. However, it's not an issue of not having enough hooks or suitable articles, its the need to find more editors to keep the process alive in the nominating of hooks and reviewing the hooks. And yes, I will copy this to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, put up to here in a lovely collapsible box, and then we can all have tea and biscuits on Kennedy ;) Goblin 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
VGAs may have never been accepted in the past, but it wasn't stated in the rules until sometime in January. So, some people might not have realized that they weren't allowed since it was never stated anywhere. I think at this point we have written down those rules and standards that, up until recently, were not previously written down. Either way (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

School projects

On the Schools/Project page, teachers are asked to seek help from existing editors, especially if anything goes wrong. To make this easier for them, on the page I have started a list of names of editors that would be prepared to help. Please think about adding your name to the list. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New System to display VGAs?

Hello all, User:Chenzw and User:Bluegoblin7 came up with a new system to rotate the VGAs on the main page. The system works as follows:

  • Each VGA has a stub which is located at "VGA stub" on a sub-page of the article.
  • There are redirects Article X as subpages of the main page. (Note: due to some funny maths, they start at 0, and run to one less than the number of VGAs.
  • Every day there will be another VGA stub on the main page. To determine which one this is, the system takes the remainder of dividing the day of the year by the number of VGAs; this gives a number; and the article of that number is then displayed.

The current system can be seen working at Main Page/Test 1.

It has the following benefits:

  • All VGAs get displayed the same number of times (more or less)
  • Rotation is quicker than the current 2 weeks
  • The system is fully automated (once the VGA stub and redirect have been created)
  • Demoting a VGA only needs the Article redirect (and possibly the VGA stub) to be deleted, and to be replaced by another (the highest numbered Article stub, for simplicity)

I therefore propose that we replace our current rotation system by the new one.

Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Only one problem, it seems to not work, it only shows a red link. Techman224Talk 15:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, it's still a WIP - we're slowly converting all the articles over. The red link *should* demonstrate how it works though, so you can see what number comes from the algorithm used... if that makes sense... Goblin 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, sounds good to me! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The system is now working, and all pages have VGA stubs except the most recent two, which will follow in the next day or so. Comments on the system please, and once it has been running a few days we will go live with it if the community like it. Thanks, Goblin 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-) While we are at it, Romania still needs a VGA stub--Eptalon (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any objections to us going ahead with this process? Also, an example can be seen with Romania as to what happens if an article gets demoted - the most recent VGA simply has its changed page. I'll write it shortly Eptalon, it's on my todo list! Cheers, Goblin 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I have switched our current main page to using the new system; you'll have a new VGA daily, now. --Eptalon (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside

Good work. Perhaps now those editors interested in the PVGA process could be tempted into discussing how to fix it from its currently poor format? While I'm not around for another few weeks, it would be interesting to see if other editors find the system to be broken. The most recently promoted article, Romania has many, many outstanding issues on the talk page but since it received the 6-0 precise minimum, it is now considered to be one of finest articles. Which it isn't. As a starter, I think we need to reconsider the precise 6-0/85% threshold (as it is gloriously flawed - an article with 5 supports and no opposes is not promoted while an article with 5 supports and one oppose is promoted for example) and we need to reconsider the one week threshold, although that is not so pressing. Why not consider that a bureaucrat (whose job on this Wikipedia is very simple right now, no need to actually think, they just need to follow the % guidelines to the letter) could review the votes and make a decision accordingly? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey TRM,
I agree. I remember having this discussion a while ago with a different article (or in fact I think it was the same one). While it met the !voting limit, there were lots of issues and so I didn't promote it. People seem to forget that it isn't a !vote, rather a discussion - therefore things outside of the !vote should be taken into consideration.
There are some other things that I also think need changing, and i'm going to do a detailed proposal at some stage - we could probably then "release" everything at the same time.
Cheers,
Goblin 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I'd like to work with you on the proposal if that's alright? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeh that's fine! It'll be at User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox2 sometime tomorrow - feel free to start something before! We can talk about it on wiki, IRC or email - I don't mind ;) Cheers Goblin 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I'll be in and out for the next three weeks, heading to Guatemala tomorrow so not sure on internet access. I'm happy to have the discussion on-wiki though as we need as much buy-in as possible. Last time I tried this it just fell flat on its face and all those people who seemed to be interested suddenly went all quiet! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Okie dokie, no worries. I'll try and draw something up by the end of this week. Thanks, Goblin 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)