Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 61

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple English Wikpiedia is heading down the wrong path

Ok all, I very hardly ever speak freely about what is on my mind, but this is just one of those times that I cannot just let what I am thinking or what is on my mind from being said. As a precaution, I am going to tell you that I am speaking my mind as my mind is speaking it to me, and that it might offend someone (although I'll try not to offend anyone). Ok, now that we have that down, here is what I have to say:

The Simple English Wikipedia is heading down the wrong path. Some of our core processes are broken and yet we would rather discuss what the icons look like on both the GA and VGA pages. Here is what I have to say about this: This is utter crap! We need to stop worrying about how the icons look and start worrying more about how our VGA and GA processes work because frankly, they are broken and are in need of a major fixup. Therefore, I think that all changes to our icons should be reversed back to the way that they were before we started heading down the wrong path and we need to start discussing how to change/fix the VGA and GA processes so that they aren't broken anymore.

People have been saying how many active editors have been retiring from here lately, and personally, I agree with the people that have left. Simple is broken and needs to be fixed. They left because they did not like the path that the Simple English Wikipedia is heading down and frankly, I don't either. Would you rather continue to have more and more of our most active users stop editing here because of the many unnecessary changes to the Simple English Wikipedia, or would you rather have us keep our most active editors. I am sick and tired of our most active editors stopping editing here and I am sick and tired of the way that this Wikipedia is run. We need to fix the way that this Wikipedia is run, and fast, otherwise, you will lose one of your most valued editors. I will retire in a month if we do not make major headway on this problem, and this time, I absolutely mean it. I will retire in a month if we do not fix our problems, and I am sure that many other active editors here will also retire when I retire because frankly, I think that I am the reason why some of our most active editors are still here.

You will do what in a month? o.O NonvocalScream (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I was a little hasty there. I will say this, I will not leave in a month, rather, I will give it a month to try to fix things before I just give up and go about my business here. Cheers, Razorflame 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we do not turn the Simple English Wikipedia around and we do not turn it around fast enough, I doubt that we will be around much longer. If I do not think that we are going to get any better, I might just have to propose the closure of this Wikipedia as a failure.

Simple talk is also turning into a cesspool. We need to start having our discussions here more civilly and we need to start making longer discussions have their own pages to talk about them on. Simple Talk is just the cesspool for every single thing to talk about on here, and this needs to be fixed. I propose that we start having longer discussions on a subpage of this page, like Wikipedia:Simple talk/Proposal to add images for example. Otherwise, this page just gets clogged with too much useless information and people have to scroll down to get to the useful posts here.

This is your last warning Simple English Wikipedia! We need to get our ship turned around and start heading in a more positive way before we get closed for good. Razorflame 03:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to say what needs to be said, which I'll try to do in a non-snotty way. Instead of ranted and threatening why don't you propose something to help the problems, Razor. The threats and rants won't do that.--   CM16  04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, I was just saying what was on my mind, I wasn't really trying to rant or threaten. I did propose one fix in what I posted, though. Cheers, Razorflame 04:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I disagree for the reason that I think the spruced-up icons will entice a reader to actually read the article, which is what we're building it for in the first place.--   CM16  04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Bingo was his name-o! obentomusubi 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Studies have actually shown that colours can distract a person from reading, as colours have the ability to annoy people because they are a very subjective thing. What looks good to one person looks attrocious to another. Why do you think most of wikipedia is white and black? -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The project continues to grow at a steady rate; there are many other langauge wikipedia that don't have the number of articles or the community we have. Razor, you know I like you ... but, I've recently gone through every single archive of Simple Talk and many other pages trying to get a feel for the project and many, MANY extablished editors have left the project because they thought it was failing, most have never returned. There are only about 4 old-timers here. New people come every week. Please don't treaten the project to get your way. If you do leave then we'll miss you, but seWP WILL survive without you!!! Threatening a closure proposal is childish! Sorry, but if you are going to speak frankly, so will I! fr33kman talk 06:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, Razor, but that was a burn. Ouch.--   CM16  06:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RF, no need to threaten like this, but people seem to be missing your point. Speaking frankly, the idea we need to spend so much time on these icons to "attract" people to the Wikipedia is simply bollocks. We need decent articles, nothing more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can understand you're frustrated, so am I, but threatening to leave won't fix anything. SteveTalk 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TRM, no we don't need it but it really helps, I know it would attract me for sure.--   CM16  08:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing to suggest changing icons will increase readership. Sorry, it's pure conjecture. Good articles on the other hand.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For clarification, aren't you and all the other icon-referencing users on here the ones who specifically complained earlier that people were paying it too much attention? obentomusubi 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will go on leading my life, but if you guys have some sort of hangup about it, then that's your problem. I apologize, I can't help you with that piece. obentomusubi 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I will retire in a month if we do not fix our problems, and I am sure that many other active editors here will also retire when I retire because frankly, I think that I am the reason why some of our most active editors are still here." Oh do go away and put that theory to the test, then, and stop creating drama. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poke. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We spend too much time discussing why Simple is broken instead of addressing the concerns and actually fixing what we feel is broken. Everyone STFU and GBTW :) Either way (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't help but agree. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note to all: I spoke too quickly in my original post. What I meant to say was that I would give it a month to try to fix the things that are wrong here before I just give up and go about my business here. Thanks, Razorflame 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another note to all: I wasn't really threatening to propose the closure of this Wikipedia, rather, I was trying to be frank and tell you what could happen in the future. Ever hear of sarcasm? Razorflame 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me get this straight, you type a long, serious letter about the future of SEWP, and then you say that you were being sarcastic??? What a load of crap. In my humble opinion, SEWP is doing all right. We just have a lot (forgive the slang) of editors who would rather waste time making simple stars, than edit to the frikkin' mainspace. I didn't leave because I thought the project was going down, my computer just crashed. If it didn't, I would be editing mainspace right now, instead of making "sarcastic" letters about the future. You want to change things for the better? I say go right ahead. I'm not stopping you. Just don't be dramatic about it. SimonKSK 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any problems in the future for Simple English Wikipedia. I think we're doing a good job making new articles in simple words. I'm just hoping traffic increases a bit more. That is my only worry. Versus22 talk 20:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hear hear! We continue to grow at a steady rate. Personally, I care what the community is focused on but not the individual editor. If a single editor wants to go around polishing the brass then good luck to 'em. It only becomes a concern if it becomes disruptive to the project. The icons debate took up a fair bit of time, but no one forced any editor to take part in that debate. Editors can choose to simply ignore proposals they don't agree with or don't want to take part in. They can simply get on with their work here. An editor who only does one edit that builds mainspace per month is still a benefit to the project. fr33kman talk 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amen.--   CM16  21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thoroughly agree. If people did not like it when I had proposed it, they had the opportunity to vote. But since many people didn't do a darn thing, when it was changed, I started receiving complaints and learned about people rollbacking my edits. Isn't that technically an abuse of rollback policy, since I wasn't vandalizing anything? Anyway... vote if you want your voice heard. Don't talk if you didn't speak out when you had the opportunity. Cheers, obentomusubi 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't vote to change stuff here. That is the problem here. We are supposed to thrive on consensus. But, some people would rather use numbers. SimonKSK 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being proactive...

Hello all,

we have two long discussions above, saying that SEWP in its current form is not what it should be. This may be very true, but I believe in solutions, rather than talking things to death.

Here are a few suggestions:

  • We do have the Article Improvement Drive: It lists a few candidates for GA/VGA or proposed demotions the community should focus on. The articles are changed every few days.
  • There are many articles that probably merit being made GA or VGA, but people simply have not found and listed them yet.
  • It is not forbidden to take a GA/VGA-equivalent article from another Wikipedia, and adapt it so it can be listed for GA or VGA here.

Some of the last few articles I listed probably need a lot of work (I am thinking of Jesus, listed for VGA). I also believe in making controversial subjects into better quality articles. While this is more difficult to do, it shows that even a small community like ours is capable of producing high-quality articles. Anyway, these are ramblings. --Eptalon (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eptalon, thank you for letting everyone know about these things. I have not actually had the knowledge of an Article Improvement Drive (so as long as that works, I agree; a WikiCup is useless). I have signed myself up and I shall help starting today. Please, guys. I don't like the drama. I wish we could get along and leave things in the past which happened in the past. obentomusubi 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obento, drama is only drama if "you"collective you allow it to be. :) fr33kman talk 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. I'll shut up. :D obentomusubi 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the focus should be two-fold; firstly, getting articles up to GA/VGA state as encouraged by the WP:AID and secondly, in importing or creating new articles that fit into the goal of the project. There are many subject areas that should be represented but aren't properly represented. The "Knowledge areas" need, for example, needs to be expanded. I think this is where I'll focus for a bit. I personally would like to see two "focus" teams made, one for GA/VGA (which we now have with the AID) and the other for new articles within the goal of the project. fr33kman talk 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I have created a WIP article for the English Wikipedia Signpost: here. Be sure to have a look, correct grammar, add to it, remove my ramblings or whatever. Hopefully once we have finished, we could look to getting it published in the Signpost, encouraging more editors. What do you think? Kennedy (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantastic idea! I don't think we'll get a massive influx of people, but even getting ten active editors from EN would be a great boon. Way to be proactive, Kennedy! DefenseSupportParty 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks brilliant! Let's hope that we get something out of it. As DSP says, it may only be one or two editors, but one or two experienced English Wikipedia editors are better than none at all! If I can be of any service in this matter, ping me ;) Goblin 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great work on that, Kennedy! This should help us greatly even if it only gets one or two active editors here. I have also made a post on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Simple English Wikipedia to try to get some more people interested in writing articles about space here. Cheers, Razorflame 17:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good job! I made some minor edits, but it looks great. obentomusubi 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'd be looking to add a bit more to it before trying to submit it, but it looks okay so far... Kennedy (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Considering that this is an educational reference for students and academics, et al., I believe that we should eliminate all occasions of AD and BC and replace it with CE or BCE. obentomusubi 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a difference?--Eptalon (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, AD and BC have inherent religious meanings (Anno Domini, in the Year of our Lord; Before Christ). I believe the articles on Wikipedia should be non-sectarian. obentomusubi 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This debate could go on forever, but I'd argue that CE and BCE are just as NPOV as they are based on the Christian calendar and the majority of the world's population are not Christian Soup Dish (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So where do we draw the line? That is precisely my question for you guys to answer. obentomusubi 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, leaving my Christian side out of it, I've only heard AD and BC used frequently so I think it's the best way to go. By the way, I've always heard AD as After Death.--   CM16  20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was thought AD meant "After Death" as well. It is just a misconception given to us by our American society (if not American, Anglophone). obentomusubi 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thus, in Spanish, they either say A. D. (Anno Domini) or d. C. (después de Cristo - after Christ). obentomusubi 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say this falls under en:WP:COMMONNAME. -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green tickY Done. If you want to write AD/BC on any page, I have created {{AD}} and {{BC}}. Some may consider it useless. Use it at your discretion, not at the discretion of others. Be bold! obentomusubi 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CE/BCE is the correct form for scholarly usage. I've personally always CE/BCE. AD/BC have no real meaning outside a Christian setting. fr33kman talk 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both mean the same thing, atheist just don't like to use BC/AD.--   CM16  20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Muslims aren't atheist and they'd state the year as 1430 AH. Jews are not atheist and they'd argue it is 5769. But I'm just being pointy! Soup Dish (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec)Actually dude, they don't mean the same thing. AD/BC refers to the death of Christ; CE/BCE referes to the "common era". AD/BC only work well for Christians. People who are Muslims, Hindus, Jews etc., (ie: non-atheists) rightly object to its usage. I may be a devout Christian but I'm also one who believes in the complete and utter seperation of church and state. Wikipedia is a resource for all mankind regardless of religion, culture, personal or political beliefs. It has to be CE/BCE; AD/BC is not acceptable in a context such as we have. Also, why should we disrespect atheists, or any one, by forcing them into the Christian way? fr33kman talk 20:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly how I feel, Fr33kman. obentomusubi 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Offensive or not we should use what's most common with the general world. Me personally, I've seen AD and BC used more by Americans in general (not just Christians) (i.e.: 10,000 B.C., 10,000 BC (film)), I can't account for the rest of the world there. Cause I've never been to the rest of the world. enWP uses BC and put BCE in parenthesis, just pointing that out.--   CM16  21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I use BC/AD, I think most people do. I'd rather we stick with that... Kennedy (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine then. Personally, I've used CE/BCE always, but this is probably due to the type of Christianity I practice. It might be a good idea to follow enWP in using CE/BCE in parantheses, but I'm not dogmatic about that either. fr33kman talk 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kinda agree on following enWP on that.--   CM16  21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Common subjects?

This discussion was originally here.

I propose we get rid of this line from the "What the Simple English Wikipedia is not" section that reads:

"Instead, we write about the most common subjects so that people from every language can read the pages easily."

because we shouldn't limit ourselves to the most common subjects. Just about every subject English Wikipedia covers could be cover in a Simple English way. The people also just learning English or kids also deserve to know just as much information, or in other word, as much information as possible. Opinions?-- CM16 MLB  08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we saying that we should not have every article the Enwp has. Can every article not be converted into basic/simple English? I'll also note that we have filled every link currently on Thoughts on removing this notation? I agree with removing that line. I also would like to reword the section so that we don't explicitly discourage the moving and conversion of articles. Our goal is also the sum of human knowledge. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have moved this here from here, cause I have not gotten any but one response since I stared it at the beginning of January.--   CM16  21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The purpose of seWP when it was established was to provide a simpler English encyclopedia that covered the common subject areas that a reader needing simpler English would be looking for. It was not to become a simpler English copy of enWP. I personally have no issues with us developing into a simpler English copy of enWP, but ... I think we should complete our goal of being a resource for the needy reader first; then we can evolve into anything else. fr33kman talk 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do tend to write what we want right now any way so I think it should be removed for the face that it's ignored.--   CM16  21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's one way to look at it; another way would be that we might need to refocus on the mission :) I don't think the statement should be changed, nor do I think that people should be forbidden from focusing on whatever takes their personal fancy. fr33kman talk 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QD suggestion

Hi, I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy if anyone wants to discuss. It's about formalizing the QD'ing of hoaxes. fr33kman talk 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, is there any way to work them on Twinkle at some point? Versus22 talk 23:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why not, look into it Versus, perhaps team up with obentomusubi  :) fr33kman talk 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's up? obentomusubi 00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main page - knowledge groups

I'm going to start working on the articles linked under "Knowledge groups" on the main page to get them all up to GA or VGA. I think it's not good that most of these are not sourced, have complex language and are generally lacking as articles. I'd invite others to join me and we can get this done within a couple of weeks. Our main page and the articles linked to it should/must be our "showcase". It should be an example of our best work. I'd suggest that the Article Improvement Drive take on this min-project also. I'm going to start with architecture myself. Cheers fr33kman talk 00:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay! I'll see what I can do. :D obentomusubi 00:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am working on atheism. obentomusubi 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to WP:TYPO

Okay, based on on this conversation which I missed most of (Wikipedians need to sleep too :), Razorflame said, "...then give one to every other Wikipedia in people's namespaces," but that also implies give a redirects to dead projects. Chenzw's proposal is reasonable, but in my opinion, the faster a shortcut is made, then the more like the Typo Team would grow. I am not asking for a Wikipedia namespace, but simply a redirect. But if the Typo Team is still big in the "few months" Chenzw mentioned, then would a redirect be reasonable? --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, so sorry. I can miss a lot in a day's time. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does this need another section? You already posted this in the other section. Either way (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-working the (V)GA process...

Hello there, I am starting the discussion that may lead to a change in the (V)GA process. I am doing this here, because of the following:

  • GA and VGA requirements are almost the same (except: VGA needs one more vote, and a higher percentage of support)
  • Most of the thing seen as bad in the VGA process would probably also apply to the GA process.

Currently the system is up and running, but it has the following perceived weaknesses:

  • Some articles are listed as either GA or VGA candidates obviously do not meet the criteria for inclusion (At the time of listing, the article must meet at least half of the respective criteria)
  • There has been discussion over the system of first listing for "improvement", for a certain time, and then listing for "vote" for another time.
  • There is a minimal quorum of votes (5 for GA, 6 for VGA) that an article needs to get to be awarded the new status. This leads to situations where an article with 5 votes (all in support) is rejected, and one of 6 votes (5 support, 1 oppose) is accepted. In addition, there is a support percentage; so a 6 vote article would fail if it did not get the required percentage of support.
  • Currently the criteria have the status of a "guideline". In theory this means that an article that does not meet them can still be awarded the flag.
  • Each GA/VGA candidate is listed/edited only by a few editors. Getting an article to GA or VGA is a lot of work. Very often though this is seen as a "prestige project" ( I got three articles to VGA, you didn't). When the system was devised it was though that improving articles to meet the criteria should be a community project.
  • Seen many times: Article is listed as VGA, then fails, then re-listed as GA. Also seen many times, articles is re-listed in the same category, shortly after failing to achieve that flag.
  • We should increase the output; ideally I want to see two articles of each category promoted per month.

I have only listed the "shortfalls" that I can see. I also see a number of solutions:

  • When an article is listed by one editor, another editor has to check and certify it meets the criteria for inclusion. If this is not done within say a week from listing, the article would be removed again.
  • Articles that failed cannot be re-listed in the same category for a certain time.

Other things to consider:

  • VGA and GA criteria should be such that each VGA is also a GA. this means listing a VGA as a proposed GA is pointless.

Did I forget anything?--Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should an article be a GA before it can be proposed as a VGA? This would encourage people to keep improving GA articles --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The GA criteria were done as an easier to meet VGA criteria; at the time this was done, it was believed that it should be possible (but harder) to directly list for VGA (without going to GA first). That said, making a GA into a VGA is easier than directly making an article into a VGA. --Eptalon (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don´t think an article needs to be a GA before a VGA. The parallel is where a Featured Article has no requirement to be a Good Article first. It´s done that way over there primarily so that articles which can´t meet the FA criteria (e.g. lack of image) can still be given some credit. We should not impose GA before VGA here for precisely the same resason. Oh, and Eptalon, I think you pretty much covered most of the pertinent points.... Let´s hope the community can spend some time thinking about how best to improve the systems and hence the Wikipedia... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my point of view, there seems to be an inherent problem on this Wikipedia with determining consensus. It seems that just because it´s Simple English, the only way we can "decide" on anything is by imposing clearcut percentage and minimum voting thresholds. This approach alone gives rise to a number of the problems Eptalon has identified above. Could we consider a more "consensus based" approach to these things? I agree that articles should not be listed if nothing is done to improve them during their "improvement period" but I´m not even sure this "improvement period" works at all. Just look at Leathermouth which I just closed due to SNOW. Nothing was done to address any of the issues raised yet it went to voting and effectively wasted four editor´s time reviewing and voting. In general we need to be more bold here and allow editors to take the Wikipedia by the scruff of the neck.
I would definitely like to see the introduction of an article improvement drive, we could select one article per week rather than continually creating millions of river and asteroid stubs (no offence Razorflame), and improve it to GA and then perhaps VGA. Just a few opening thoughts. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No offense taken. I just do the work that I am most comfortable in doing. I am not very comfortable making articles into Good Articles or Very Good Articles, and I definitely agree with an article improvement drive. Cheers, Razorflame 14:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The minimal number of votes was introduced because many articles, such as Homer Simpson were being promoted to VGA based on a (usually 100%) consensus of 3 or 4 votes, look at like the first 2 archives on the PVGA page to see examples how this worked. In my opinion, an article deserving it should be "promotable" to the respective status by any user, we should not burden the "admin team" to determine consensus (as I pointed out before, 3-4 votes, 100% consensus, makes a (Very) Good Article?) - If we do not replace the current system which both imposes a minimum number of votes and a "support percentage", we will always have the problem that an article that either falls short of the minimum number of votes (even by one), or by the support percentage cannot be promoted. If we replace the system, we need to make sure that there is "enough support in the community" for an article to be promoted; to decide this based on 3 or 4 people who voiced their opinion can be dangerous. I do admit that even with the minimal quorum there is a chance you get the required number of votes by rallying, but as this number increases, it becomes more difficult. If my "guesstimates" are correct, 5 votes is about 1/6 of the active editors here. One of the solutions proposed would be to have "(V)GA coordinators", these people would do the following:
  • Determine that an article does in fact meet the requirements to be listed
  • Determine the time at which to move from "improvement" to "voting"
  • Based on a set of criteria, determine whether the article should be awarded the flag, after the vote; if necessary make the changes in the article, and archive the discussion/vote
  • For VGAs: See that the VGA stub gets created, and an article number be assigned (for rotation)
Ideally we would need 3-4 people to do this (they could do both GAs and VGAs, and might likely also be involved in the demotion process). To keep some level of objectivity, they should not promote/demote/decide on articles which they either nominated themselves, or significantly contributed to.
To all others: don't be afraid to voice your opinion. Only if we get the input of the community can we decide on a system that works for the community. --Eptalon (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good so far! I'll add my own views later when I get round to it, but as it is I would support the changes. I'd be happy to be on some form of committee as well - particularly with the VGA updating as I helped with the new system :) Cheers, Goblin 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]´s featured article and featured list process have co-ordinators and generally work on a consensus basis for promotion. It works there okay so why not here? The concept of a committee to assess suitability based on careful analysis of the article in question along with an assessment of the community´s opinions sounds like a very good idea. The committee would not simply vote count as we have it today... Right now, for example, Chopstick has one support and one oppose. I have provided, in the oppose, a plethora of issues that need to be fixed within the article. The supporter cites "moral support" - I´m pretty sure the article will gain insufficient support to be promoted but, according to the current rules, the vote is 1-1 right now... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to agree with Eptalon's proposal of adding coordinators whose job it is to look at nominated articles to see if they meet the current criteria for each and determine if the vote has enough consensus to become a VGA or GA. Cheers, Razorflame 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed changes to the P(V)GA process

I will be proactive again, following my comments above, I think we need:

  • A committee (of 3-6 named editors), with the "functions" described above; we only need one such committee for both processes.
  • Rework the P(V)GA process: The 5 or 6 votes, and the percentages required should stay. However it should be reworded in such a way as to say that these are rails for the committee. This means that if the committee comes to the conclusion that the article merits the flag, even though only 4 people voted/voiced their opinion, thats fine.
  • Perhaps add a section that says that an article that failed cannot be listed in the same category, before a certain time (1 month?) or noticeable work has been done to improve/remedy the issues identified?
  • Once we get the three people and have fixed the criteria, specify a date where we switch over from the current to the new process.
  • If the case arises that the committee can't agree, I'd rather the article in question were not promoted. --Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes Yes YES!!! I agree with it all, and i'd like to volunteer myself for the committee as I kinda do that anyway! Just one question about the committee: I assume they can nominate articles but then not !vote on them? Or can they !vote? Cheers, Goblin 12:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I was proposing was the following: Supposing you were on the committee, you could still nominate articles; you could also vote on them; the only restriction would be: you could however not close / decide on those articles where you voted (which would not be a big problem given they would be a few committee members) --Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okie dokie, that's what I thought. I try not to !vote anyway, even if it's one of my noms! Sign me up ;) Goblin 14:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds decent enough. I´m still not overwhelmed with the % thing, I think we ought to learn how to establish consensus here without %, but I understand that it is purely advice for the committee. As for relisting, this should be entirely up to the committee - as you have identified, if sufficient work has been done on the article then it shouldn´t matter when it´s renominated. If inadequate effort has been made to correct issues, the committee will simply withdraw the nomination. I also think the committee ought to be selected by election. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that things like % levels should be at the committee's discretion, i.e. if there is a high percentage but low quality then no promotion and vice versa. It should be listed only as a guide for the community. As for elections, I think it's a good idea and would work well. I've started a new sub-section below for that purpose, as it appears that the guidelines as suggested by Eptalon are ok with most members of the community. If we can get three people on the committee then I guess we can then go ahead and launch the new guidelines (or would it be a policy?). Also, on a separate but related note, the committee should also ensure that WP:AID is kept filled up with the latest articles, though I am looking into getting a bot to do this at some stage. Cheers, Goblin 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Committee Elections

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

(Yes, the name sucks, please suggest a better one!)

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

I like doing behind the scenes work and clerking etc, and i've been doing this bit for a while now. I (hope) I am a good judge of consensus and I (hope) I am good at working as part of a team :) Cheers, Goblin 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I admit that was wrong, and I have certainly learnt from that. The article and outstanding issues always come before consensus. I hope to be able to change your mind and if not, thanks for your comments :)

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I´ve had over 20 featured articles and lists on, two featured topics there and the odd Good Article. Here I´ve created, pretty much single-handedly, five VGAs, so I believe I have the expertise required here. I may not make popular comments but I make comments so we improve this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


fr33kman (talk · contribs)

While I'm not the most experienced of GA/VGA editors, I do believe I'm a diligent, honest and neutral editor who has a fairly good understanding of policy and procedure and who can acurately determine consensus. I think that I am first and foremost a mainspace editor; believing that it is in mainspace where will live or die as a project. I also think I've a pretty good understanding of WP:RS, and WP:V fr33kman talk 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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


Why are we rushing to elect a "Committee" so fast, when we haven't properly discussed if the idea of a committee is any good. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, I somewhat see it as power grabbing, and not something we need. We can discuss things properly, evaluate articles and determine whether they are good or very good, depending on the criteria, and not relying on votes. SteveTalk 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree here, this is much too soon. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Full ACK! In my opinion is such a committee useless. I think, first we should vote whether we want such a committee and then we can elect users for the committee. Barras (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to see some more interest here at last! Yes, perhaps a committee election is premature but maybe the first step is to allow a bit of flexibility in the promotion criteria by which I mean it should be down to one editor or a group of editors to assess consensus? For instance, we have a current oppose to a GA based on a personal preferabce to see an image in GAs. This is an invalid reason as it is not one of the GA criteria for an article to have an image. Chances are that this oppose, under current assessment rules, could be pivotal while unfair. It is, however, just one example of the ways the current voting process is flawed. We should be able to find editors we trust to make consensual assessments. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we are going to elect an article committee, we might as well just elect an ArbCom as well. Cheers, Razorflame 06:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all, the two are not related in any way. has nominated members to promote featured articles and lists, it works fine. Our voting system (and please stop using !vote because here it really is a vote) is flawed in too many ways for it to continue this way. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was being sarcastic. I wasn't really saying that we should elect an ArbCom. -.- Razorflame 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unident) Agreed. We should decide on that first before we even elect the committee. I will freeze the above discussion for a while and start a new one down here. Chenzw  Talk  09:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, it sounds a bit aristocratic oligarchic. I would like a say in the PVGA and PGA processes. I don't think my ideas are completely useless. A committee would be fine if we had some number of editors volunteer their time. The only thing is, they would have to be committed to the committee. I wouldn't support the proposal at all, but if we were doing that, I would choose it to be of any number of committed users. I personally would like to be a part of this "committee", seeing as I participate regularly in the said processes. Cheers, obentomusubi 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straw poll

What do you want done next in the PGA/PVGA process?

  1. "allow a bit of flexibility in the promotion criteria by which I mean it should be down to one editor or a group of editors to assess consensus" - The Rambling Man
  2. A committee (of 3-6 named editors), with the "functions" described above;" - Eptalon
  3. "Have a group of committed volunteers who are reputable (meaning non-vandals or not disruptive in the community) take charge. I don't believe that a committee that denies the power to anyone to vote in these things is a committee worth having, as it appears to me to be far too aristocratic oligarchic." obentomusubi

Revival of DYK... but in a different form

Hello all,

I've been doing some thinking, along with others, and now that we have lost DYK we have lost all forms of showing off our "Good Articles", or "GAs".

I'd like to propose that DYK is revived, but in a different form that is not user intensive and once set up can simply be "run".

I propose that it is used soley for showing GAs, and two or three facts from eachGA are put into a fixed queue. This queue is then randomised so that three or four hooks show at once, and the hooks displayed on the main page are never fixed, so that they (literally) change with every page load.


Goblin 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. That is all. DefenseSupportParty 14:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great :) I'll work on a working example at some stage. BTW: You needed a good edit summary to go with that comment :P Goblin 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea. Not only would there be something new on the front page DYK but it would also give us further reason (and hopefully community interest) to promote articles to GA status. EhJJTALK 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very nice! I am in favor of it as long as all of the facts are well-referenced. And, this does also include VGAs right? (in case there may be a shortage of GAs). obentomusubi 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea was that it wouldn't include VGAs as they already get exposure, much more than they used to, whereas GAs dont get any. The hooks themselves should be referenced and shouldn't be a big issue to find them due to the nature of GAs. There would be no set update schedule or queue, the idea that it can just run itself and randomly updates at random intervals. This keeps the Main Page dynamic as well. Hope this helps, Goblin 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are we going to do with the hooks that have already been promoted to show on the Main Page? Are we just going to forget them? I propose that we also use the hooks for articles that have already been approved as there is no need to just completely throw them out as well. Cheers, Razorflame 21:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be for the community to decide. Personally i'd say not because then we have two dfferent types of classes in the rotation - not good imo. Also, I think the new section ought to be called something other than "DYK" to differentiate it from the old section, especially in case the old were to ever return. Ta, Goblin 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Oppose this for two reasons. One we don't have that many GAs or VGAs to last us "forever" at this point. Also there's so much more information that could get out that way but wouldn't be able to cause the article they're in is not a GA or VGA.--   CM16  03:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, per above. We simply don't have the articles to run this sort of project at this time. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. What if we use up all our GAs? What will DYK be of then? I suggest returning to the old routine (with extra help if possible). — RyanCross (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if we cycled it, much like the VGA? --obentomusubi 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*cough* That's what i'm saying. All of the GA's will never be "used up" because it is a continous, random loop. We don't not put VGAs on the Main Page because they are only VGAs for a while. The same should go for GAs. If it is demoted, then we simply remove them from the queue. I'll work on something to show y'all what I mean :). Goblin 10:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK, going off of Goblin's ideas...

What if we revived the DYK and cycled all of the GAs in a mod format, much like the selected articles are cycled? In the end, the article's hooks may be repeated, but it seems like nobody has a problem with the selected articles' being repeated. Officially consider this Proposition 3. obentomusubi 04:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I was saying... and is a new section really necessary? Goblin 10:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize. I thought that's what you were saying, but some people were saying that we'd run out. How would we run out if it was on an infinite cycle? obentomusubi 18:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then my worry is that the same fact appears too often, or DYK gets very boring. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the average reader would notice. We, the editors would, but the average reader wouldn't. Personally I'd like to simply reinstate DYK as it was but with a single editor checking that the hook fulfills the criteria. If we take as an example the hook I added for Golda Meir. It was clear that this was acceptable but couldn't be moved because it lacked another editors apporval. As long as neither the editor who nom's the hook nor the editor who approves the hook moves it to the next update, it shouldn't be a problem. We could also do a cycle of an old lot of hooks if there are not enough to make up the next update for the week. fr33kman talk 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • e/cThat shouldn't happen for a number of reasons:
  1. The process will be completely random, and there will be a number of hooks from each Good Article that can easily be expanded upon. Every page load would present a different selection of hooks.
  2. With the current aim to get at least one new GA a month, there is not much chance of them become boring and remember, that aim can only get better.
  3. The section would be aimed more at brining new editors in (the main purpose of any DYK section) rather than enlightening the regulars - thus eliminating the hooks being "boring".
Hope this clears things up.
Cheers, Goblin 22:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Can someone merge this with the section above? There is no need for two...
 Done fr33kman talk 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fr33kman, various problems with your idea:
  1. There weren't enough editors nominating hooks for it to be worthwhile - many were becoming stale, with not even an update a week being managed at times.
  2. We spent months agonising over the criteria - one man approval was suggested but knocked down on reliability reasons - I don't see any difference why it shouldn't be again.
  3. Why cycle old, stale hooks again? And then what happens if there is an influx and then old ones aren't used again? It might sound petty but I am sure some editors would argue "Why does this hook get more airtime than my hook" etc.
However, I'm open to be proven wrong on this: indeed I hope I am. Perhaps the way forward is to run some form of DYK for a few months but not on the Main Page to show it's stability? Anyway, I'll get working on an example of my idea shortly. Cheers, Goblin 22:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<-- Ahh, but that is my point, it would not actually be a single editor approving it. The first "check" is when the nominator nominates it; the second "check" occurs when an editor reviews it and approves it; the third "check" is a different editor who moves it into the next update template section. That's actually three editors reviewing a single hook, not just one. If we cycled old hooks to make up the numbers we'd use old hooks in a oldest first manner. We wouldn't use the same hook over and over again. I think that DYK hooks should be from anywhere; VGA, GA, PVGA, PGA, stubs, whatever. As long as they are sourced, why not. Even VGAs should be used because it'd encourage the reader to look into VGAs that are not the current FA. I personally only think that DYK should be updated once a week, more often is too much for us as a community to handle. fr33kman talk 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again though the manpower issue comes up - do we have enough editors to sustain that? As I said, there were times when there was such a lul that there would only be a couple of editors active in the process and updates were far between. I still oppose the use of VGAs as hooks because they already get enough air time and under the new system it only takes 23 days to go through every VGA - according to some users it is also changing quicker than one a day - so in theory every VGA could be seen within a week. Likewise I oppose stubs, because firstly it is unlikely that they will actually have hooks, and secondly because we want to showcase "good" articles, not short stubs. I apologise if I'm coming across as negative - i'm an optimist, not a pessimist - but i'm just putting forward the reasons that I see as to why a DYK section in the old format wouldn't work. Finally, you say that "x, y and z will happen", but I know (talking from experience of previous DYK closure discussions) that it might happen for the first few days/weeks but then the interest will die off. Besides, as a community with only about 60 active members I think that we should focus on making one or two sections really good ((V)GA for example) rather than focussing on multiple, average sections. Thanks, Goblin 08:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:TYPO shortcut

So, I am requesting that the Typo Team has a WP shortcut, because, the Typo Team has already 19 members plus one "honorary" member. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also, since only 45 editors edit this Wikipedia, 19 is almost half of the the regular editors. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Special:Statistics says we had over a thousand active users (logged in user who edited in the past month). But, I'll agree that only about 30-50 are the regulars (and edit on this page) so I'd think your request is fine. EhJJTALK 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - If my wrestling project can't have WP:PW cause it's in my userspace, why should the typo team be treated any differently. I'm sorry but that would be hypocritical.--   CM16  03:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support both the Typo Team getting their shortcut and ChristianMan's getting his shortcut. I actually would support you guys moving your teams/task forces to the Wikipedia: namespace. But I'm probably alone on that one. obentomusubi 03:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're not, it's just I don't want this wiki to be hypocritical or discriminatory towards certain projects, thus if the typo team gets theirs the wrestling project should get ours.--   CM16  03:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If just those two projects were to get their Wikipedia namespace redirects, then give one to every other Wikipedia in people's namespaces. That is not what we need to be thinking about right now. There are many other problems that this Wikipedia faces that needs fixing before this. Razorflame 03:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. And that's why we have specialized editors. Razorflame, you are an extraordinary author. You do many, many amazing things with articles. I, on the other hand, am not as skilled at simplifying and expanding articles as you. My work happens behind the scenes, as I have said numerous times. I try to participate in the "broken" PGAs and PVGAs as much as possible. I have other ideas that are not pertinent to articles. So why am I here? you ask? Well, I am here because people like you like to expand articles. That is a highly commendable trait. I am here to take care of the other stuff, so the articles don't falter. I support you, and I would like to think you would support me. I guess I'm terribly mistaken. Please notify me if this is not the case. obentomusubi 04:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindenting) The project has many members, but most WikiProjects die after some time. Please re-request after a few months of continued activity. Thanks, Chenzw  Talk  07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CM16, your project is unfinished, and it has like what, 4 people, 2 of which are not active, and 1 whose computer crashed. You won't be getting a shortcut anytime soon. The typo team shortcut proposal is more reasonable, though. SimonKSK 18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my oppinion: No redirects between different name spaces. --Barras (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That above is why I didn't get mine. And, Simon, I agree it does make more sense for them to get theirs but that wouldn't change the fact it's hypocritical.--   CM16  20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, based on on this conversation which I missed most of (Wikipedians need to sleep too :), Razorflame said, "...then give one to every other Wikipedia in people's namespaces," but that also implies give a redirects to dead projects. Chenzw's proposal is reasonable, but in my opinion, the faster a shortcut is made, then the more like the Typo Team would grow. I am not asking for a Wikipedia namespace, but simply a redirect. But if the Typo Team is still big in the "few months" Chenzw mentioned, then would a redirect be reasonable? --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't really implying that we give all the other projects redirects as well, I was trying to make a point (which looks like I failed miserably). I believe that if the Typo Team is still big within the next few weeks to go ahead and give you the redirect, but I would like to see a little bit more from the Typo Team in the next couple of weeks before I go ahead and say yes. Cheers, Razorflame 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's s still a cross-namespace redirect. I don't think the typo team should get one unless the project is moved into the Wikipedia namespace.--   CM16  02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per what Razorflame said, but also in addition it should be moved into the project space, and then only if it is still big and active. No WP: shortcuts for non-project space projects, especially now that we have the Namespace aliasing set up. Cheers, Goblin 11:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I will heed Razorflame's words and make the Typo Team a success in the next few weeks. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposition 2: Protection templates

Does the Simple English Wikipedia need so many protection templates? I propose that the majority of them be merged into {{semi-protected}} and {{protected}}. And since the vast majority of "protected" pages are semi-protected, I think fully protected templates are almost rendered useless. Necessary, but useless. Useless in the sense of, they are not included on many pages. Ideas? obentomusubi 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't fix what isn't already broken. Please, can we just leave the icons alone? They've been working for us since we started here on the Simple English Wikipedia and I would prefer that they just be left alone. Thanks, Razorflame 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit counter in popups

The currently used edit counter in popups (Interiot's (the wannabe_kate one) has been broken for some time now and does not look like it shall be fixed. I'm wondering if we should change over to X!'s one instead? It doesn't have the SQL lag that others show and shows an accurate count and a lot of other useful stuff to boot. Comments? fr33kman talk 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X!'s editcounter is a better one in my opinon. It is fairly detailed and shows how many edits the user has per month. Versus22 talk 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I quite like X!'s. obentomusubi 07:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't use popups but personally I would suggest using the one on the stable toolserver. Due to the nature of the Stable TS this is unlikely to break and as very little lag on it. It also provides useful graphs amongst other things. Cheers, Goblin 08:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can you not use popups?!? :) I couldn't live without popups! Anyways, I don't care which is used of these two. I like X!'s but am not dogmatic and stability should be a concern. I just think we need to fix the broken count link in popups as it's driving me round the bend (okay, not really but ...) fr33kman talk 15:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried it and they annoyed me more than anything else ;) I'm just fine using Rollback, Vandal Warner and the IRC Recent Changes feed ;). I couldn't care less which counter you use, but I would still reccomend the Stable Toolserver one simply because it's looked after by more than one person and is the most reliable (and accurate) counter out of all of the ones I have tried. Merçí, Goblin 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with BG7. Most of the time, when I am on my laptop, since it is a Windows laptop and I don't have Firefox on it, I use IE7, which Twinkle doesn't work on. I've never really liked the popups. I use just rollback and undo and vandal warner. Cheers, Razorflame 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Count me in as one who can't stand popups. -Djsasso (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with our new PGA icon

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

Am I the only person who finds it hard to see the difference between the PGA and the GA icons? This is dangerous as people not so familiar with Wikipedia may mistake a PGA (which could be a terrible state) with a GA (which hopefully won't). I think the older icons which were darker in colour and showed the "chipped" edge for proposed GAs and VGAs were much clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think besides all other discussions, we should have the following:
  • An icon for VGAs (currently we are using a star of sorts).
  • Another one for GAs
I would say it would be good if the shapes these icons depict are different. We can then color code the candidates ('solid', bright color for articles of that type; 'weaker' color for proposals.
As I see it we currently don't have that. --Eptalon (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We used to have this before The Obento Musubi changed everything. Razorflame 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. But unfortunately 11 people seemed to think the new scheme was appropriate and consensus was reached to change to the currently flawed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not anymore. I was WP:BOLD, but I've undone all the changes made to the VGA and GA templates and left a note saying not to revert without a new discussion about them first. I do think that our GA icon should be something different, but it should not be what it was before I changed it. Razorflame 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Final change to icons

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

I've gone ahead and was WP:BOLD and I have changed the icons to a compromise between the two design ideas. I believe that this design for both the GA and VGA icons provides both the "roundness" of TOM's design with the professionalism of the old designs. I believe that it is a good middle ground for both sides. What do you think? Razorflame 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: Please do not revert any of the changes that I have made to the icons until we've fully discussed it out here. Thanks, Razorflame 16:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we get, like I said: different shapes for the icons? --Eptalon (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, you mean like we used to before all this nonsense started? Like I'd vote for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured that the different colors would be a good enough difference between the two. Besides, what article is likely to have both the vgood and good icons on it at the same time? If you would rather us go back to the support symbol, I'm fine with that, albeit, I don't think that that is a very good GA icon. Razorflame 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing is you are never supposed to use colour to denote a difference in something on wikipedia because of colour blind issues etc. I know there is a relevant policy about that somewhere but I can't think of the link at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I'll change the good article icon back to the support symbol, then. Cheers, Razorflame 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a very important point Djsasso. One that was obviously overlooked when 11 folks supported the use of four very similarly shaped icons a week or so ago. It's clear the icons voted for are inappropriate, good for RF on being bold, perhaps this really is a case of not needing to fix something which isn't broken. All that's happened is the generation of mass confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I've fixed the proposed good article icon and good article icons now. It is now back to the icon it was before it was changed. Cheers, Razorflame 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Template/Infobox Help

Hey all,

Need a bit of help with {{Infobox London station}}. It's not displaying correctly on Bush Hill Park railway station and I doubt it will on every other page it is placed on. Cheers, Goblin 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could explain better what about it is not displaying correctly, so I can get a better evaluation of it?--   CM16  18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the missing template as that was just a link to a portal on en.Wikipedia. I did not think that we allowed portals here, so I removed that template from the Infobox. Cheers, Razorflame 18:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops yeh of course :). Basically put, it's displaying parameters that aren't specified, and there is also some complex "if" code around the Portal stuff... that can go completely.
Does that help?
Goblin 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't remove the if stuff around the portal, but I did remove the stuff that had to do with the portal. It should work now. Cheers, Razorflame 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, still there. All of those blank spaces shouldn't display as they haven't been called - unless that's the if stuff. It could possibly be an error on our "master" infobox. Hmmm... it might be easier to do a new infobox, and if so can anyone do that? Thanks, Goblin 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I last checked the article that you pointed to, there was nothing to do with the portal templates there. In fact, it was empty. It didn't even show either of the portal templates. Yes, the if stuff is still there, but I can't remove it, because if I removed it, it would break the infobox. Razorflame 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeh I know that - but that's not the real problem and never really was. It's the other stuff that needs getting rid of - thus why I said it might be better to code a new one. If anyone can do that it'd be great :) (For reference, it should look like en:Template:Infobox London station). Cheers, Goblin 18:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has nothing to do with our version of the template. That is just how the Infoboxes here are. It doesn't look that bad, you know :P. Cheers, Razorflame 18:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try asking the creator of the template on the English Wikipedia if he/she'd be willing to help us make our infoboxes like theirs. Cheers, Razorflame 18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well yes but i'm ver picky ;). If you are having trouble with getting a user i'd recommend en:User:Slambo. He's a wizz with templates and he's a rail fan. Just mention me and TSW (he'll know what it is!) and he should pop over. Thanks, Goblin 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

I'm personally quite disappointed that some people (who shall remain unnamed) are reverting templates such as {{icon}}, {{pgood}}, {{pvgood}}, {{good}} and {{vgood}} to how it was before I changed it to the icon, calling it "nonsense". Yet in the vote that I held for Proposition 1 (possibly the most controversial proposition I've ever made), it was firmly established by a vote of 11-3 that I should do an overhaul. Now, it seems that some people who didn't vote because it was "nonsense" are complaining, and some people who did vote are bummed and angered that it got the votes and are taking it into their own hands to revert my changes. Please stop. This may turn into an edit war, and I'm saying it here, on Simple Talk, to please not revert my changes when the community established in the vote that they thought it was a good idea. I don't want to keep bringing this up, but I will have to as long as people keep doing this. obentomusubi 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your changes to the icons are not welcome because they look unprofessional. I believe that my changes were to make it a compromise between the two differences of the users on this site. I also did not appreciate being "rollbacked". If you had stopped to think before using the rollback tool, you would have seen that I said, Don't revert until the discussion here is over. 11 votes to 3 votes doesn't mean consensus, either. Thanks, Razorflame 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The templates have been protected. I understand I have been in an edit war. I don't appreciate my work being called "unprofessional". The system was agreed upon for the current {{icon}} template. I would have been less flustered had you changed just the image instead of "fixing" my template, meaning reverting it to my older system which I consider deprecated (the placement is off since there is a banner that it overlaps). obentomusubi 20:08 26 March 2009 (UTC)
e/c They are all fully protected now, and will stay that way until consensus is formed. I'm sure Synergy will come and verify this. Goblin 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
e/c Fully agree with protection! Discuss it here folks fr33kman talk 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct. I want to see this issue resolved before unprotection. That means the community needs to form a consensus here, so we can know which templates we are using. Templates are transcluded to many pages and this should not be happening. Synergy 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for the edit warring. Thank you for protecting the page. I have made my point over and over again that I believe consensus was reached. Some users told me to be bold, so I was. And it seemed like not many people were vehemently against it at the beginning, but some people started attacking my edits and calling them "useless" and "unprofessional" among other names, which I, frankly, don't appreciate at all. I hope my grievances are being taken into consideration, as I don't want my voice to be ignored. I don't appreciate what's going on at all. And I'm sure you guys don't either. I apologize from the bottom of my heart for the edit warring. obentomusubi 20:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've come to this realization...I say get rid of the icons if they are going to cause this much problems. I apologize for using the rollback tool, I was whole-heartedly meaning to use the undo tool. Cheers, Razorflame 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Icons are not causing the trouble; editors are! It needs discussion, obviously fr33kman talk 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My two cents: I would much rather have the icons be something that looks professional and would give the readers of the articles the impression that we actually care about or VGAs and GAs. The stars that TOM changed our icons to are not professional (IMHO), and do not give our readers the sense of professionalism that we should be showing to our readers. Heck, that might even get those readers to join our site! I understand that TOM went through a lot of work into making the icons, however, I do not think that those icons are the way to go. I believe that the icons that I changed them to were much better and as Djsasso brought up above, the symbols need to be different for our color blind editors to be able to differentiate between GAs and VGAs. I believe that I accomplished that. Thanks for hearing me out, Razorflame 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I think all this discussion about what icons to use in articles is wasting time that could be used on writing articles, but meh. SteveTalk 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind if all the icons were reverted back to their original design. –Juliancolton (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well article aren't everything, yes their most of it but we do need to be presentable to, so yes we should discuss this.--   CM16  02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In two weeks fr33kman talk 04:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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