Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 72

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

Back from my Wiki Break

I'm been away for a couple of months now, but now am back. I don't know how much time I'll spend here, but I will try to be more involved on the wiki. However, I'm looking forward to getting back to work here. Techman224Talk 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Welcome back :) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I once took a little wiki-break off for a few months as well ^.^ Welcome back! --S3C'R3T 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back! Mythdon (talkchanges) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Simple English Wikipedia! We can always use some new (yet old) faces showing up around here, so feel free to jump right in and start editing again :). Cheers, Razorflame 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
:D We need more editors, so you're welcome. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No kidding. Most of the users who are active on this project are administrators, and most of what they do is administrate. The most active users here are me, Griffinofwales, Fr33kman, Nonvocalscream, Either way, PeterSymonds, etc. Mythdon (talkchanges) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Go back to writing articles. I thought you were told to try and avoid talking. People don't need to know who you think the most active editors are. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability and games

What makes a computer game notable - is one game more notable than another? I have been looking for guidelines after the poor Moshi Monsters got deleted. Other games eg AdventureQuest RPG seemed to me to be no more or less notable than the Moshis. (I have never had a Moshi Monster nor ever will). Quick discussion on IRC suggested the following as some starting points for establishing notability: third party coverage of the game, news articles about the game, popularity of the game, sales, game rankings on a site like gamespot. Other comments? --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I have temporarily restored the article for this discussion. I remain neutral on the topic however. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I have added to the Moshi Monsters to see if I can make them notable using some of the guidelines above. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

With reference to tags on articles... QUALITY QUALITY QUALITY... when an article is 1) Unsourced 2) has no links 3) is complex... it needs a tag. TAgs add articles to the appropriate categories so that we can fix them later. To revert good tags, is a bit disruptive. If consensus is that we don't need tags, then I'll RFD the tag page as unneeded. Either we are 1) Consistent with our editorial policy, or 2) Inconsistent. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not that tags are unneeded....its that if something is already clearly marked as a stub then most of those other tags are redundant. Now if its a non-stub article missing something like say resources then a no resource tag is appropriate. Its the mass addition of tags to stubs that I have a problem with and I am guessing the others in the conversation that prompted this discussion had issues with. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
If the article is not tagged a stub, I add tags. If it is, I do not. Geometry was not tagged a stub so I added a tag. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Tags are ugly, irrelevant, distracting, and give the project a bad reputation. If you want to look up Hong Kong, you wouldn't particularly care that the article has too many redlinks, would you? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with JC. An awful article is awful, the average person can understand this. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do the tags exist? Griffinofwales (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
To serve people's editcountitus. Tags both here and on en are despised by a great many people. But like many things on wiki, once they are created they are hard to get rid of cause there are enough people that are vocal enough about keeping them that it ends in no consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Because someone some years ago thought probably that they are useful and I guess, because en has them. Barras || talk 13:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

<-If they exist, we should use them, because that proves that people think we should have them. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it proves some people think we should have them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
people that are vocal enough about keeping them that it ends in no consensus. That is not some, that is a majority if its ending in no consensus (or very close to a majority). Griffinofwales (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No consensus can work in the other way too. "55% of people want to get rid of them, but 45% want to keep them." The majority there wants to delete them, but it's still no consensus. Either way (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No consensus means no decision to keep or delete. ie too close to call. In such cases we keep them to be safe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(or very close to a majority)? I don't see what's wrong with the tags. I find them informative for editors so they immediately know what's wrong with the article. As for the ugly part, our templates look a lot better than enWP's (I encountered a huge one yesterday). Griffinofwales (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC) If we do keep them, we need to create doc pages for them, so users can know when to add the tags and when not to. For example, do not add tags to stubs, do not add the nofootnotes tag and the unreferenced tag etc. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Give readers a little credit. Anything important that is missing is going to jump out at them immediately. Or is not important enough to list. For example you were tagging articles as having no interwikis at one point. Which is a ridiculous tag to add onto articles. The degrading of the article is not worth the slight benefit of telling people hey no one has linked this to another wiki. Tags degrade the quality of an article further. Readers (ie not editors) tend to completely discount an article the moment they see a warning at the top from the asking around I have done. Thus meaning people no longer read it once they see a warning. We want to encourage reading not discourage. We build the wiki for the readers not the editors. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Add or remove? I remember removing the tags, but not adding them. Instead of article tags, would talk page tags be better? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Putting them on talk pages removes most of my issues with them, though I still think you should fix the problem rather than tag...ie I just added a reference to an article you just tagged in the same amount of time it probably took you to tag it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I would not object to a talk page plan. Let's wait 24 hours for comments and then I will change the templates. I will then notify you so you can get your bot to switch them. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Changes like this will need to be discussed for much longer than 24 hours. Nothing changes instantly. :) The new motto of simple should be "Slow Down!" -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
When we take a long time, nothing gets done, but if we rush it, users complain that we didn't wait long enough. 72 hours minimum? and 7 days max? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Discussions on major changes should always take atleast a minimum of 7 days because not all editors edit every day. Something that changes a key component of how things happen on the wiki usually take a month. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Then I will go with a month. I think that we will talk about it for a week then everyone will forget about it and when the month happens, we can't do anything because nobody actually agreed on anything. Should I stop tagging altogether during this period, should I add tags to the articles (preferred option, since the bot will fix it if this plan is agreed to), or should I add tags to the talk pages? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a key thing that will also have to be discussed is the individual tags - some, such as the NPOV tag can actually be a boon to the casual reader, not just to editors, while a complex tag is only useful to editors. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Use tags on talk pages instead

To separate out the two discussions lets talk about the viability of just using these tags on talk pages instead of on the article itself in this section. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • As a compromise, general maintenance templates could be placed on the talk page. Templates such as {{NPOV}} and {{neutrality}} should be placed on article space to notify readers. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In general, I don't have any problem with tags; in some cases they are redundant but in many cases they are needed. But I have a problem with the Complex tag. It is very confusing because almost everybody tries to write in Simple English; I think that when a person put a Complex tag, that same person should explain in the Talk page why he/she put that tag. For example, in Brazil I don't see the need of that tag; it needs some changes (and it is too short for that country!) but I cannot see the complexity in that particular article. Jmarcano (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree, same problem with the NPOV and Neutrality tags. I will find out who added the complex tag to Brazil (probably an IP), and I will ask them. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My only concern here, is, and has always been maintenance and quality. I can concede that tags do add an unpleasant aesthetic value to pages. So I can compromise with the page talk pages. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that all tags should go on talk pages, except ones that note content is POV. hmwithτ 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with this. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Me too. Seems to be ok. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

reminder

A recent thread (archive 70 bottom thread) talked about desysops by crats. It was supported by 14 users and opposed by 2 (2 users who opposed initially switched sides). I'm guessing that that means that we have consensus for it. How do we get this set up, or has it already happened? Griffinofwales (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In future, think about necromancing the thread if it has only just been archived. Normally things like this are handled by bugzilla:. MC8 (b · t) 19:44, Wednesday August 26 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict) Someone needs to go to bugzilla: and fill in a bug. Barras || talk 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Doing... MC8 (b · t) 19:49, Wednesday August 26 2009 (UTC)
Bug 20410 requested. MC8 (b · t) 20:04, Wednesday August 26 2009 (UTC)

IRC using mibbit (help)

For some reason, I can't use IRC with Mibbit. When I search for #wikipedia-simple nothing shows up. Anyone know how to use mibbit? --S3C'R3T 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you on freenode? Majorly talk 23:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Mibbit no longer does IRC for the Freenode server which includes the Simple wiki channel. Either way (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Try http://webchat.freenode.net instead. Mibbit was banned from Freenode's network a couple of months ago. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to be the centre of attention...

Following another fiasco of mine at simplewiki, I invite comments at my talkpage. I've written a (hopefully) brief explanatory statement there. Maxim(talk) 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Inactive

Today is the day I have to pack the computer. :( I will return soon, but I may not be able to respond or help for a few days. See you'all soon, and good luck. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Computer is packed... so I will log in from time to time on the lap top... I may not be able to respond to messages. If there is a template wikignome/guru who is good with templates place the ones above my talk page and user page... or point me to the documentation. :D I wish you all luck. Be well, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:Wikibreak? hmwithτ 16:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done I've added a custom mbox message for you. fr33kman talk 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Good luck with your move and I hope to see you back here on the Simple English Wikipedia soon! Razorflame 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Bizarre, I just moved as well, so you're heading off just as I'm coming back. :) EVula // talk // // 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
He's just begun moving house. fr33kman talk 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Simple Policy Re: New Articles

In reference to creating mathematical articles, is it the policy of Wikipedia:Simple to only allow elementary simple topics to be created or also allow limitless number of very complex topics and mathematical categories as long as they are written in "simple" language or intuitive concepts? In other words, are there any limits on which mathematical topics can be created? Henry Delforn (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to write about any complex mathematical topic, as long as it is in simple english. You will know if you have succeeded if I can understand it. Good luck. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) check. Henry Delforn (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
You can write about anything at all. Try to make it so an average adolescent can read and understand it. If you need help simplifying math topics, either Eptalon or myself (I'm good with stats) may be able to help. We aim to cater to anyone who has limited English language skills. This can mean children, persons with learning difficulties but it can also mean people with advanced degrees learning English as a Foreign Language. My rule of thumb is to simplify and aid comprehension, but not to "dumb down" and loose meaning. fr33kman talk 07:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
ok, got it, thx. don't forget your offer to help...nah, you're gonna forget so let's get started now. there's only two thing i really want out of wp:simple: 1) to develop a noncommutative category in math, and 2) get consensus to restructure mathematics per MSC. because you offered to help with stats (don't know exactly what you meant by help) but would you be willing to start researching "noncommutative probabilty and statistics" for the initial nc article? Henry Delforn (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

section clarifications

I have noticed that at some articles, we have a 'notes' section, and a 'references' section. Usually, the notes section holds notes. But at some articles, the references section contains book sources for the entire article, and the notes section contains the inline citations. Which is correct? I think it's the first one but I want to make sure. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes section? MC8 (b · t) 23:54, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)
Yes! What's so difficult? Or do you want an example? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Notes and References are different. Some inline citations are notes others are references. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Inline refs in the note section. The ones that use <ref> tags and the {{reflist}}. I should have clarified. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know. -DJSasso (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

<-How are refs notes? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought we put refs and notes all in the same section, called "Notes" for simplicity. I don't know if there's a "right" answer to your question, since our WP:MOS (Manual of Style) is not used. EhJJTALK 01:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh...OK. Thanks anyways, Griffinofwales (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
i like to use the ==References== for general sources to support the entire article or a particular section of the article, while the ==Notes== for inline citations for a specific sentence or two that require immediate verification (such as when the sentence(s) in question state or claim something that's hard to believe or out of the ordinary, or needs an explanation that would be out of place in the body), and in that case, the sentence(s) should be very close in wording to the actual citation, unlike general sources in the ==References= which need not be exact wording at all. And, of course, all references and citations must be reliable sources, i like to include links with all ref and cites but i don't think is mandatory. The "Notes" are really meant to be "footnotes" (as in the bottom of a page of a book) while "References" are meant to be just that (as in the back pages of a book). Henry Delforn (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Notes vs references

"Notes" should be used for inline citations using <ref></ref> tags using the {{cite}} templates. These are the [1],[2],[3] type foot-notes, or end-notes and are used to support a specific fact or assertion.. The "References" section should be contain general references of the style [Summer, 2009] which points a reader to a paper or book source that is simply listed as a general source of information in this section. Some articles will only have one or the other, others will utilize both. fr33kman talk 14:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add that to my checklist. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this in our MOS then? Notes, in my opinion, are precisely that, notes. In other words, they're little snippets of information which enhance the main article but don't belong in the main article itself. References, on the other hand, should be the inline references described by fr33kman as those generated by the {{cite}} template (hence why the template there is called "reflist"). For other references like books and such, we should have something like "other sources" or "further reading" or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I remember something of Refs and Notes at Earth. There, I used the References section for inline citations and the notes for explanations and comments about the statements. I think TRM is correct about this. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I will wait a little while longer, and depending on what users like, I will add it to MOS. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
MOS says either is ok I think. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping we could decide on one so we could keep it consistent across the project. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Borked interface(s)

With the development of the Vector skin and "Beta" interface, it seems more and more of the graphical features on this Wikipedia are looking bad or not working at all. This raises the question of what we should do about it. Given the complexity of the issue, I think the easiest thing would be for us to import/copy the much of the MediaWiki:*.js and *.css files from en to here. Comments? EhJJTALK 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vector isn't working on en either....I've heard some people say its Vector that is the issue and its going to be tossed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Without talking about Vector specifically (it looks good but is very broken at core levels, from what i've just found out...) we should transwiki things like common.css/js and infoboxes etc from en, as they are proven to work. No one has yet found a solution to our infobox problem, so either transwiki or compeletely re-write I think... Goblin 18:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
What problem with the infoboxes? Any I use seem to work. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty widely known that our infoboxes were broken, with blank parameters displaying, things not looking as they should etc. Great examples are Victoria line and British Rail Class 108 (Yes, there are lots of others but they are two that i've been working with recently...) Ta, Goblin 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
The Victoria example you give looks the same as the en one. But the British Rail Class article I see what you mean about parameters showing up that shouldn't. I have never seen that before on any of our infoboxes. Odd. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, seems Vic was fixed then, but i've seen the 108 example on a few other iboxes too, though they unfortunately elude me at this point. But point taken about some infoboxes being fine, my bad :). Goblin 18:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!
I have no problem importing any you need. Just let me know, then you can simplify them back to simple english. Hopefully that will work. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Add to that the {{Infobox Political post}}. Pmlineditor  Talk 05:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

'I am the bureaucrat who coordinates this Wikipedia'

It looks like some people think I own this Wikipedia. The diff above is from a discussion I had with the user Precious Roy, who has since retired. EastvillageGroupie had asked me to tell Precious Roy to 'stop following her around'. In this context, I posted the following on his talk page:

Your relationship with Eastvillagegroupie
Hello Precious Roy,
since you both arrived here, I have only seen you "point out" things to EastvillageGroupie, or correct things :that she has written. While this may be helpful in some cases, she has clearly told you that she does not :appreciate it. What people do with their time when they do not edit Wikipedia is irrelevant
We as the community are prepared to accept both of you, despite what may (or may not) have happened on English :Wikipedia, but also know that we are prepared to block/community ban, to keep this Wikipedia the place we like. :Consider this the only warning you will receive, if you are caught embarrassing/wikistalking :EastVillageGroupie or edit-warring with her, you will be blocked, and possibly community banned.
So, please move on, and start editing productively.
As a side note: I am the bureaucrat who coordinates this Wikipedia.
Thank you for your understanding --Eptalon (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I later removed the line starting As a side note:.. with the edit comment 'Fix: I am not the only person coordinating.' Note: I changed the bold in my original contribution to italics. Feel free to comment.--Eptalon (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Being a bureaucrat has nothing to do with coordination. We have a decentralized structure based on consensus, saying it like that makes it sound like you're in charge - which is incorrect. I personally think your overstepped your boundaries by saying that, however you did the right thing by not trying to hide it and I think we should all forgive, forget and move on. --Chris 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for any drama/pointing of fingers. As what Chris G said, you didn't hide it, so I believe the community will forgive this mistake. Let's move on. Chenzw  Talk  14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
What is done is done. Time to move on... Pmlineditor  Talk 14:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Per all above, you do a good job, and I think we all know that it is all of us as a team... so all is good. Mistakes get made. People are human. Per above... lets move on. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Good attempt to avoid drama, ultimately resulting in drama creation. Move on. Eptalon, you do a good job as a level head around here. Keep it up. Nothing more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
No apology needed, you have my support as always --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Official leave of the Simple English Wikipedia

After thinking this through for more than a month now, I have decided to officially retire from this project. This project is going downhill and it is turning into something that I do not like and do not wish to be a part of anymore. I will still be active on the Simple English Wiktionary, though, so if you want to converse with me, feel free to email me or message me on my talk page over there. I just want to say thanks to everyone here and I wish you luck in the future. I believe that this is the right move now, as I am finding myself gravitating more and more away from this project, until I am barely here at all. I now believe that I should devote all of my time to a project that I believe has a better future than this project and one that I believe better suits my capabilities to the best of their abilities.

Good luck, Razorflame 20:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remove all my flags on this account on this Wikipedia. Rollback, and import. Please also remove rollback from User:Razorflame Public and block Razorflame Public. Thank you, Razorflame 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that's important. I think your retirement is enough. Rollback and import aren't too troubling, just in case you change your mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not coming back this time, and this time, I mean it. Therefore, I have no need for any flags on this account on this Wikipedia. Razorflame 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Good luck to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck helping SEWiktionary, and I'm leaving too. Good luck to you :D --S3C'R3T 21:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye, Razorflame! Hopefully you have a good retirement. Mythdon (talkchanges) 01:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


My changes to the P(V)GA Processes

Hi gang,

Thought i'd just outline my bold changes to the P(V)GA processes.

In short, I have removed the voting section per m:voting is evil. Discussion and consensus building is a much better way of determining what articles are promoted or not, and furthermore it adds in another layer of quality control to ensure that we don't promote crap. Indeed, if it weren't for some vigilant vote closing in the past, this may already have happened.

Proposals now last for up to three weeks, during which stage the article is to be discussed. When a consensus is reached, the article may be either promoted or not promoted, though my personal suggestion would be to let not promoted's run the full three weeks as work will likely be done on them! Hopefully this can make the process a better place.

If you've got any questions, ask, if you've got any objections, please make them. I'd prefer it if the change wasn't undone without discussion, but I won't undo if it is, merely discuss my reasons for it. If there is consensus to undo the changes, then by all means do it, but please, please, please do not make a vote out of it.

Thank you for your time.

Goblin 10:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Please make sure, that all articles run the full three weeks and do not allow snow closures. I don't want that an article (after only 2 people said it is ok) will be closed. Barras || talk 10:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
SNOW closures should be acceptable only after there is sufficient consensus (i.e., all who have commented have said "Yes, this is a good (V)GA." Otherwise, no. 2 people is not consensus. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  'Fraid I disagree partly there Barras. First and foremost, a consensus is not formed by just two people - that is, unless those people are the only two people to comment in the three weeks. It's hard to judge consensus perfectly, but, for example, it was gained by Crich Tramway Village and Victoria line within days of their moving to voting. Furthermore, it would not be a "SNOW" closure because SNOW refers to votes, not discussions. Consensus != vote, consensus = discussion. That's a pretty fundamental part that many on this wiki have yet to understand. If an article is clearly in (V)GA shape after two days and several people "support" it, I will not hesitate in closing it. However, if those supports are no more than " Support" then I will not - it is based around the comments people make, not the pretty pictures they use. I find it hard to get into text what I am thinking, so forgive me if this hasn't really done what I set out to do - i'm sure someone can interpret this and write it down for me. Goblin 10:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
@PM, a SNOW closure is never acceptable in a discussion, as it refers to voting not discussions. If it's being SNOW closed it's not being discussed properly. Hope that bit makes sense. Goblin 10:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
No, I suggest SNOWs only after all members of our community (specially those involved in the process) have commented. If there comments are in support, then, imo, a (V)GA can be SNOWed. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If everyone has commented with support comments (not Support, they are effectively discounted in such situations) then it's a "Close per consensus", not a SNOW close. See the logic? SNOW is never used in discussions, end of. (Yes, I have lots more counter arguments). Goblin 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

I only agree, if all early closures are disallowed in this "new" proccess and all articles have to be there for three weeks. There is no reason to close it after two/three/seven/nine days. It can still be open the full three weeks. So all have a chance to comment there. Barras || talk 10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you think then you are misunderstanding consensus entirely. If an article is clearly crap and people say so, it can be closed and consigned to the archives - though in the (V)GA setting this would be a bad idea. On the other hand, if an article has plenty of support from a variety of users then yes, it can be promoted. If someone has any concerns that it should not be promoted, then they can raise them - any good consensus gauger will be able to see that and take them into account. Furthermore, most people comment within the first few days anyway when it comes to the voting. I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. Goblin 10:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
My (personal) opinion would be to have the changes undone (or to undo them), and then look at it as a community. The way forward would be:
  1. We should discuss about what is good and what is bad about the current way we handle the GA/VGA process. From these discussions, we will find a set of things to change.
  2. Once we have that, we must look at how we change the criteria. Since the criteria should not be subjective, in this stage it is important what wording we use.
  3. Until this is done, I think we should use the old (ie. current) criteria before your changes.
Since the whole process takes a long time (last time, about half a year), we had better start sooner than later.--Eptalon (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
And my counterargument to this, there was a discussion started, but it fell flat on it's face with just me a Fr33k commenting. There is general agreement that voting is evil and that this wiki votes too much, or, to be precise, on everything. In addition, a 6 month discussion would not help anything at all. All that it would succeed in doing is taking people away from editing (As it seems this one is doing :|) and therefore we would not get any VGAs or GAs for 6 months. Is that a good thing? Anywhere other than SEWP, it would be a very bad thing. As it is, the criteria is also not subjective - I looked into that before changing the process. Finally, eptalon, stop trying to rule/dictate the wiki. Some people may say it in jest, I mean it. It is not your wiki, so don't treat it as it is. Change is good most of the time, accept it. Goblin 11:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
Learn reading: He isn't the ruler of this wiki. Or have you links, where he said this. Please proof your statement or remove it. Barras || talk 11:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(<-) (tired of typing many colons)

  • I don't own this wiki or rule it; there are many other editors that probably do more owning or ruling than I do.
  • Feuding is unproductive; we should talk about the problem, and not about the editors who found it.
  • When we change the criteria, or the way they are handled we should bundle these changes. One change now, and another in a week is unproductive.
  • Go dig in the archive, the last time such changes happened, discussions/implementation took several months.
  • The criteria we have now (that is, before your recent changes) seem to work reasonably well; 15 GAs and 9 VGAs were promoted this year. A number of nominations failed because the did not meet the criteria, or the editors involved were not keen enough to fix certain issues.
  • Yes, there are some problems, but if we do a round of problem-fixing we should fix all of them at the same time. The big questions I cannot answer is how long it will take and how much drama it will generate. --Eptalon (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You clearly do, more than most, and many say it. But we're going OT.
    • We are talking about it.
    • I HAVE NOT CHANGED THE BLOODY CRITERIA
    • No. I don't want to, that's unproductive. My point is that these things should 'not take weeks/months as it detracts from wiki building.
    • As above.
    • As above. Only it needn't take any time at all and there need be no drama. You're creating the drama. Answer me one question: do you approve of the removal of vote or not? If you do, then 'nuff said. Goblin 11:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Off topic, but I do see Goblin's point. this diff, which is only available to admins (unless it has been conveniently "vanished") is just one example of ownership issues. Soup Dish (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Several editors need to agree that the given article is of said quality - If there is agreement it does not matter in what way it was reached, or how it is expressed. The problem however comes when there is disagreement (that is: at least one editor disagrees); In that case it is of course easier to have a quantifiable form. In most cases, we will not have all-supports. In such a situation, it should still be possible to promote certain articles, to award the flag, yet make sure that the standards of quality we have set are met. If you come up with a new form, and the cost of implementing the changes is not too great, we should probably go ahead. --Eptalon (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Re Soup Dish: Did you refer to me adding, and later removing 'As a side note: I am the bureaucrat who coordinates this Wikipedia.' on a user talk page in Feb. this year? - The user talk page has since been deleted.--Eptalon (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "I am the bureaucrat who coordinates this Wikipedia" Soup Dish (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Eptalon does not own the wiki, he has never "owned" the wiki. It is a username that carries weight, yes, but his word is not law. You're able to disagree with him. If anyone thinks that Eptalon is in contradiction of WP:OWN, then procedures need to be carried out. My experience is that he just adds an opinion to a page, nothing more. MC8 (b · t) 12:57, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
There are two things that must be done
  1. Bluegoblin needs to put up the itemization of what he did at PGA and not here, so that it can be easily found
  2. The clocks on all the GA nominations need to reset, since the process is changed...they all should get three weeks
I've been bold and am making the second happen, but the first needs to happen Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does it need to be done at PGA? Here is fine. Three weeks? That's longer than any other discussion forum I've seen on any Wikimedia project! MC8 (b · t) 19:22, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
We definitively do not need to "rest the clocks" here. Get a grip and let's just get on with dealing with comments and hope that we can achieve something credible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
From observation, it appears that this change has ground everything to a standstill. Three weeks was Goblin's idea, not mine. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

Should we or should we not link dates? The en MOS says that dates "are not normally linked". I would like to propose that we link dates in the following cases. We should link Birth and Death dates for notable people. These dates would then link to the relevant date page. We should link dates of important events (those that are important enough to have their own page). We have the date pages, lets use them to the full. Peterdownunder (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, don't link dates per en MOS. Otherwise what is the point in saying we generally follow the en wiki MOS? There have been megabytes of debate, votes etc on en wiki about this and it resulted in a general consensus to not link dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say to link them, per your "use the date pages fully" reasoning. I don't know of a reason not to. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
We have a MOS. Why don't we use it? It says that if the editor thinks it would be useful to the reader it should be added. IMO we should add links if the article in question is on the linked page. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Could I please recommend that everyone makes an effort to look at the wildly extensive discussions on this subject at en.wiki before just reacting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't like that en switched to not linking them. But that is just a personal preference I suppose. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
For sure. If we think that Joe Biden's birthday coinciding with the beginning of the Nuremberg Trials (but three years later), or that, on the same day "Salvador Dali, a Spanish artist opens his first one man show" is of true linking relevance to our readers then I'm shocked. Worse, I just don't believe it. Hundreds of people participated in discussions relating to this on en wiki and the consensus is encapsulated in the MOS. If we don't want to follow that part of the MOS, why bother following any of the MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Our MOS says Wikilinks: It is not necessary to add wikilinks to all dates, like this: "25 March 2004" or "February 10"). Only add a wikilink if you think the reader will find useful information at the date-related article you have linked to. I think that's fine. You just link them when it'll be important/useful to the reader. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
But we should make it clear that linking Joe Biden's birthday to the start of the Nuremburg Trials is not useful at all - it's purely trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The content in the link isn't useful to the reader. --> Don't link. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 18:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And while we're here, then I would suggest that we reach an understanding that linking individual years is a complete waste of time as well. So Bobby Robson may have be born in 1933, but is it important enough to suggest we link his birth year so we can find out that also in 1933 "Choudhary Rahmat Ali has chosen the name Pakistan in his pamphlet"? Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Only useful thing about that is knowing what was happening at the same time. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You must remember that links should be relevant to the subject page, not to enhancing trivia-based linkages. Per en.wiki:
What generally should be linked
In general, links should be created to:
  • relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
  • articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background".
  • articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions, unless they are defined in the article – but always consider providing a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link to another article. If a technical or slang term doesn't have its own article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary may be the most appropriate.
  • articles about geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers or that in the context may be confused with places that have a similar or identical name.
i.e. not linking individual years so someone can find out "erm. what else happened in 1975 now I've read about the xxx article?" The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It depends. We don't link like this: He went to xxx on 15 Januwary 1912. But if it is something important, such a the year of the independence of the country, it should be linked imo. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, we should have much better things to do than waste time discussing this. We should follow the en.wiki MOS - there's no good reason not to do that. That is, after all, the point of the manual. Please note that featured articles and lists, and good articles on English Wikipedia do not link dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Why follow the en MOS when we have our own? And we evn have a section about date linking. It's stupid. Just follow our own, just link dates which contain useful content for the reader. Simple. End of. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Can some creative person create a new editors barnstar, which would be a positive message to new editors who have started to make a regular contribution. Something new and shiny maybe. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea! I remember my first barnstar! I was so excited! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Article Cup

Hi team,

Just letting you know that "The Article Cup" has now begun. The aim is to get as many Good and Very Good articles as you can within three months.

More details can be found here, and if you have not signed up then please do so!

Finally, "bonus points" will be given for taking articles from WP:WANT to one of the higher statii.

Regards,

Goblin 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

Meh, I was just going to ask you about it! Let's get going! How does the scoring ork exactly (including bonus points, etc... :) ) Thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What about giving bonus bonus for WP:HAVE articles too? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Scoring is 5 points for a GA and a further 5 points for VGA. Direct VGAs are 10 points. WP:HAVE (which is what I meant!) I think should be 5 bonus points on top of the GA or VGA points, and controversially i'd also like to put minus 5 points on the creation of new articles that aren't included on WP:HAVE - this puts an emphasis on making the most important articles great. Thoughts? Goblin 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!
That seems kind of pointless to subtract 5 points if it's not a HAVE article. If you did that, what would be the incentive to make the article then for competitors? We should be encouraging GAs and VGAs of any subject in addition to the HAVE articles. So add 5 bonus points for the HAVEs, but don't take away for writing about something else, especially if you're awarding them 0 points for a good article. Either way (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not what i'm saying. Make a point penalty if it's an article that doesn't already exist on the wiki and is not on WP:HAVE. We should be expanding articles we have, not making more useless cruft. Granted however there will be exceptions. Perhaps instead a one point penalty for every stub created to fill the redlink requirement? Goblin 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
You said "i'd also like to put minus 5 points on the creation of new articles that aren't included on WP:HAVE" If a GA is worth 5 points, and a person makes a GA that's not on the HAVE list, they get 0 points, so they'd have no incentive to make an article. And the redlink subtraction would be unfair depending on the subject area. One area might have a lot of blue-linked articles already while another might not so the editor will have a lot to fill. It will also discourage people from wikilinking so they can avoid redlinks and the subsequent penalties. Either way (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What he means is you should expand an already existing article (not necessarily from WP:HAVE). If you creaet a new article to expand it you will get a penalty, because it's better to improve the articles we have than new ones. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
e/c I re-iterate, the penalty is not for getting non-WP:HAVE articles to (V)GA status. It is for creating articles that are not already contained within the encyclopedia: the exception being the redlinks on HAVE. Furthermore, the redlink subtraction is only for creating stubs - not for creating decent non-stub articles. So, basically, you only lose points if you make redlink stubs, not redlink articles. Are you following? Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Goblin 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!
No, I understand completely. I'm just saying that there are articles we don't have on here that would be perfectly non-cruft articles so it'd be penalizing them for adding that. And yes, I understand it's only for stub-level redlink creations, but it the GA you're working on only requires 5 redlink creations, and the article someone else is working on requires 20, it's tough for them to create 20 non-stub articles as compared to your 5. Either way (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I do agree on that point and would be all for allowing special cases. With the latter point I don't really think it's much of an issue - that happens as it is. Some people create decent articles for every redlink they make, others one line stubs, regardless of who/what/when/where it is, if you catch my drift. I'm happy to drop penalties all together, but really do think we need to penalise cruft adding and stub creation... unless we give bonus points for the opposite? Goblin 17:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Any point?

Just a quick straw poll. Is this Wikipedia worthwhile? As far as mainspace edits go, I reckon on less than 100 (without vandalism, and reverts) in the past 12 hours. Is there any point in dragging this out? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At the moment there are 30-odd people editing here. Judging by what I see (don't quote me on that), this number has grown slightly over the past 8 months (meaning there have been a few new people showing up in this list). Our main problem is still about attracting new editors, which we likely won't do if we cannot get decent-quality articles - That is improve articles till they have one of the GA or VGA flags (because those are most likely the ones we will be judged on). Other than that, I think that dramamongering is a good way to keep people away. --Eptalon (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Concentrate on making (V)GAs as said above. Publicising the project on enwp could be a good way to get new editors. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really drama-mongering Eptalon, just asking a simple question. With such little interest in this Wikipedia, in the mainspace particularly, I am just concerned that the WMF will have no good reason to keep it going. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As I told you, TRM, shut down all discussions for 2 weeks and allow only article work. Barras (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea. Just keep article talk pages open, to discuss the points that need doing. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Just shut down ST, ANI and all other possible pages where drama can be caused and keep open VIP for vandals. Barras (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right Barras. But the net effect so far of limited discussion has been vandalism, and vandalism reversion and not much else. WMF won't pay for this if things don't change... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No drama fortnight anyone? ;) Pmlineditor  Talk 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Look, I can say that I got at least 5 new editors to come and edit here. We're not dead. We just had a quiet day. We must believe in ourselves. This WP is not crap and won't be. We should concentrate on (V)GAs and that'll help motivate us. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just even try it for a week? (E/C*2) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we are working for a good cause, but I see one downfall. That is audience size. Who actually reads these articles? When you do a google search you see EN. Never simple. It is very hard to find this WP.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 (change conflict) :::::Yes perhaps. :) Pmlineditor  Talk 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

    • @Gordon: Nah, Google lists enwp and then simplewp. We're not /too/ small; we're the 43rd most accessed wp or something. And believe me, there were a lot less editors when I came about. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Our main problem is our low number of (regular) editors. It is currently around 30; Personally, I would also like to see more of them, say double the number to the end of the year- however, if things grow at the rate they have over the last eight months, I doubt we will see more than ten new regulars till then. What we need to do is to improve the "value" the people get from editing here. Another way of doing this would be to get spoken versions for all GAs and VGAs; VGAs first, since they get more publicity. At the moment we are at 58 GAs/VGAs, a possible goal might be to get 100 of them, till the end of the year. Perhaps something different, harder to do: Has anyone looked at the distribution of such articles? - One of the things we could watch out for is to have at least one GA/VGA for each of the knowledge groups on the main page (This will of course be harder, as it might mean people have to write about things they are not interested in). Of course, these are just ideas, if you do know a way of attracting huge crows of new users, please do. --Eptalon (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any point to this wiki? Yes, or course there is! But .... the problem is not with the point of such a wiki, it is with the definition of the focus of it. Right now we seem to see ourselves merely as a simplified version of enWP. This is completely WRONG! We should be dealing with material that fulfills an educational need of our readership. We should NOT be dealing with whatever our personal interests are and merely making them more simple and so including them here. For instance, we don't need to worry about sports team rankings within a given season, or epsisodes of a given TV show. Instead we should be dealing with basic topics within, history, geography, science, mathematics, literature, technology and other such educationally relevant materials. We need to remember that we exist because enWP has become TOO complex for many people to find useful; so we fill that gap and take care of that need. Right now we don't, hopefully we will one day. That's why I'm here at least! my 2p's worth. fr33kman talk 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A random thought, more editors would be nice and that will happen if we support new editors, but we really should worry if the vandalism stops - that means no one is reading the pages. --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a definite part of me that thinks we should perhaps kill off absolutely everything but the best of our articles and start fresh with that. I also think we should have a much clearer definition of Simple English; I think that would help us greatly in our attempts to bring everything up to a decent level.
    A (slightly) less dramatic option would be to turn off new page creation entirely for a week; no new pages, everyone just work on existing stuff. EVula // talk // // 16:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a problem that we don't all agree on our target audience. Also, it's a shame that the pages linked from our Main Page are all half-done. The following ought to be our priority, along with WP:HAVE, but most are half-written and poor quality. These should all be VGAs. EhJJTALK 00:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Globe-Star of life.svg Applied sciences
Architecture (building) • Communication Electronics Engineering Farming Health Industry Medicine Transport Weather
Books-aj.svg aj ashton 01f.svg People and social studies
Anthropology (study of people) • Archaeology (history of civilization) • Geography Education History Language Philosophy (abstract ideas) • Psychology Sociology Teaching
Crystal Project colors.png Daily life, art and culture
Animation Art Book Cooking Custom Culture Dance Family Games Gardening Leisure (free time) • Movies and films Music Radio Sports Theater Travel Television
   
Natural sciences and maths
Algebra Astronomy (stars and space) • Biology (animals and plants) • Chemistry Computer science Earth science Ecology Geometry Mathematics Physics Statistics Zoology (study of animals)
Gnome-applications-science.svg
Government and law
Copyright Defense Economics (trade and business) • Government Human rights Laws Military Politics Trade
Gnome-applications.svg
Religions and beliefs
Atheism Bahá'í Buddhism Christianity Esotericism Hinduism Islam Jainism Judaism Mythology Paganism Sect Sikhism Taoism Theology
ReligiousSymbols.svg
  • Well, we better get to work then! hmwithτ 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Simple English Projects

Are simple english projects worth while to keep? There has been several attempts in the past to close all SE projects. My opinion about simple english projects is that:

  • SEWP - too much drama, unproductivity, arguing over nonsense, and vandals
  • SEWB - an almost dead project, no active editors or admins, its even up for closing
  • SEWKT - a bit unappreciated?
  • SEWQ - also inactive

Many people hate SE projects, although there is resistance from closing the projects. 71.107.252.181 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot talk about the other projects; My take on SEWP is that we are here to build an encyclopedia that is easier to understand than the main English one. Ideally, we also write for a different audience. We have come up with ideas on how make this wikipedia better, the most notable being the DYK, and two categories of better articles. As to the editors spending their life on talk pages, and not "editing mainspace" enough - There will always be such editors. With the time, you learn to ignore those that do not contribute productively. As to the vandals, they confirm that someone actually reads what we write. As I pointed out in a thread above, to grow this WP needs to focus more on the quality of the articles, and not so much on their quantity. --Eptalon (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
SEWQ inactive?? Really? We are /much/ more active than many other projects. And, as you may notice, other than the proposal to close SEWB, others were not at all accepted. And SEWP is not dead. We have a steady DYK and P(V)GA process. Rather than closing down projects, it is better to work on them. If we started a closing spree based on the fact that we "hate" X and Y projects, then WMF would have about 10-20 projects. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 08:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only one that smells a sock... (This is more than likely a troll/sock of a banned user across (most of) the projects and is out to "get back" at us...) Goblin 10:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
Let me get this straight, none of the simple english projects (except for wikibooks) are inactive. I agree that this wiki has too much drama, but we are trying to manage it. Simple wikitionary is also a growing project. Simple wikibooks is truely inactive and should probably be shut down or merged with the English Wikibooks. Simple wikiquote is not inactive. I have been dedicating most of my efforts here to revive that project, for the past 2 ~ 3 weeks. Except for wikibooks, I do not think any of the simple english projects should be closed. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody verify my account?

Hi, my account is not autoconfirmed or confirmed.. can somebody set it as autoconfirmed or confirmed and tell me on my talk page. Thank you! :) --Olli (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • As far as I know to autoconfirm it, your account has to be over 4 days old or have 10 edits; see here for more information. The only time an account needs to be 'confirmed' is when there's a special event and so it needs to be manually confirmed. But generally the autoconfirmed one should be ideal for you. иιƒкч? 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed is done by the server. You will have to wait for 4 days from the time your account is created to be "autoconfirmed". You can already edit almost any page on the Wikipedia. If you need to edit a protected page, you can ask for it to be unprotected for you to edit. Also, you can ask almost any user to move a page for you. Is there something we can help you with? EhJJTALK 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How to edit mainpage

How is possible to edit main page? --Olli (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Only administrators can edit the Main Page. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 11:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Why so? I dont think that simple english is not very public than example English wikipedia. --Olli (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The enwp main page is full protected. If the Main Page was unprotected, then it would be vandalized often. We don't want that. :) Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The main page is the first thing the majority of people see when they come to Simple Wikipedia, so we want to make sure it is never changed to something inappropriate. Keeping it unprotected would lead to possible abuse. If you have suggestions for the main page, you can add those at Talk:Main Page. Hope this helps, Either way (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The talk page is protected too. That doesn't make sense. I was trying to suggest changing "Turkey changed their currency" to "Turkey changed its currency" in the "Did you know" section.Frappyjohn (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It should changed:
Well you can easily make your point, here, like you did. And as for their or its, well try "discretionary plurals" which US-English hates but Brit-English tolerates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
But regardless, you'll be thrilled to know I've fixed it up per your request. Have a nice day! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not allow edits if user is

  • under 10 days old
  • Allow user edits, but no allowed ip edits. It protects much, why its not possible? --Olli (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
There really is no major reason to be editing the main page, so it's best to keep it protected as it is and direct any suggestions for changes to it to be added to the talk page. Either way (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As Either way said, the main page gets a lot of views and would be vandalized too much. Usually the main page does not need any changes (most administrators don't edit it, because it uses very confusing transclusions). If there's something that needs to be changed, please ask on the Talk page and someone else can make the change for you. EhJJTALK 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Article subpages

There should be no article subpages with separate versions in the article mainspace. Why am I seeing article subpages? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Because we them for VGAs. They appear on the main page. Barras (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Right, then they should be a subpage of somewhere else, e.g. project space. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? What's the problem with having these few subpages in article namespace. It's only for the VGAs. Barras (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Editors may change the subpage instead of the article by accident.
  2. The main page VGA link should link to the article actual (while it can also still display the "stub subpage").
NonvocalScream (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with NVS. These absolutely do not belong in the mainspace, as much as my userpage does not. Majorly talk 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe redirect them to:
  • Wikipedia:Very Good article/stub/''name of the article''.
Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would work perfect (no redirects should be left in place) NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC) NonvocalScream (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, no redirects. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Get on with it then! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • EhJJ and NVS started to move some pages. Do it with all the VGA stubs, or revert it. And more important: Do it in the next day, otherwise it isn't a helpful move. If you start the move, so complete it and don't leave it alone. (e.g. this one is missing) Thanks Barras (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done Sorry, we, missed that one. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a bot (EhJBot (talk · contribs)) that can do the rest, but it won't suppress the redirect creation when it moves the page. For this, the bot needs the bot flag. If I don't have the bot flag by tonight, I'll finish the moves and delete the redirects manually. EhJJTALK 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
OK! Just let it run and manual delete the redirects. There are at all only about 30 VGAs and some are done. That wouldn't be much work. Barras (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't run it from work (I'm on lunch break but the bot is on my home computer). I'll run it in 4-5 hours and clean up remaining redirects and also fix Wikipedia:Very good articles/by date. EhJJTALK 16:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Main page

I'm proposing that we cascade protect the Main page.

  1. The main page is the most visible page.
    1. We have seen an increased amount of wiki wide vandalism.
    2. We routinely use preventative protection on the main page, and high vis areas such as main page elements.
  2. The main page is fully protected.
    1. Transcluding semi or nonprotected pages defeat the full protection.
    2. One could simply abuse a transcluded page. You don't have to wait long to be autoconfirmed.
    3. With a full protected main page, with semi or unprotected transclusion, we ought to semi protect the main page instead.

Thank you for your consideration, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support plan. We have enough admins to deal with this. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::Definitely support, as it's the most visible page. Hardtofindaname (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok to me. I think that the Main Page ought to be cascade protected. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Definite oppose. Yesterday, NonvocalScream decided to change the protection level for the main page. Uncalled for, he should have got consensus first. I revert, he reverts back. In good faith, I have not reverted again. There is no evidence of long term IP or User vandalism on any of the transcluded pages. It also stops non-admins from updating the DYK page and furthermore stops people from making (Sometimes urgent) fixes to VGA stubs. Its also harder to keep track of what is protected. The DYK page is Mainly updated by non-admins. Many users are out to murder this section, and so the cascading is only speeding this up. Furthermore, if cascading is such a good idea, then why not go so far as to +sysop every page linked from the MP. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 07:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  On second thoughts, it is not a very good idea. DYK updates will be problematic and well, there hasn't been much vandalism on any of the transcluded pages. If such vandalism starts, then cascading might be an option. Pmlineditor  Talk 07:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, Yotcmdr is right. Just protect where need be, I guess. Hardtofindaname (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the safer way is the cascade, but I understand that it isn't good for a non-admin who wants to update DYK. I don't see vandalism on any on the main page transcluded page. So far, I don't think we need the cascading protection. Barras (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • We could file a bug that adds a "rollbacker" protection level, meaning that we have a "trusted user" protection level. Or, we could fully protect every page individually (i.e. not protected). Then we can undo protection for various pages if required. MC8 (b · t) 12:29, Sunday September 13 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think this wiki is getting enough vandalism that it's worth cascade protecting the Main Page. I feel that it would cause more harm than it would prevent. Perhaps we will need to do this in the future, however, and we can revisit it then. hmwithτ 05:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ST#Proposal redux

My proposal.

Hey there. The earlier proposal (above) has come to a standstill, probably due to the large amount of discussion it entails (getting hung up on one bit, only to forget the rest). Due to this, I'm proposing a discussion on just one section: we change the main deletion focus from notability to usability -- how useful is the end article to the user? To aid the discussion, I made a flowchart to outline my proposal. Simply put, someone asks just three questions: Is this article notable? Is it useful? Can we make it useful easily? -- this will eliminate several different articles in the bud. Regards, MC8 (b · t) 18:33, Wednesday August 26 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we change WP:QD#A4 to something that reflects something similar to the flowchart. MC8 (b · t) 18:33, Wednesday August 26 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me for being impatient, but this section appears to have been overlooked. If I could, I would do it myself, but it isn't a policy that can easily be enacted single-handedly. Please comment :)
Yeah, I agree with the proposal. It'll be much easier than creating 2-3k articles and deleting them after a long time. We are not enwp and have different motives. We won't include all such 1 line non-notable stubs. It'll be better to follow your proposal. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If they are non-notable, we can delete them under current policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Like Pmlinediter, I believe that if this proposal is enacted, it would make our jobs here a lot easier and it would help to stick to our motives, which is a good thing. I believe that this proposal should definitely be enacted as I definitely think that it will help. However, there might be situations that arise that administrators might delete articles that someone was going to expand, yet they hadn't gotten around to it yet. Razorflame 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
So we can then recreate the article :) MC8 (b · t) 18:17, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)

What should be done with stubs for VGAs, GAs and DYKs? I'm not willing to stop creating stubs, if they are needed for one of these. No one is familar with all topics and can expand and explain all stubs, which s/he need for an other page. Please consider this. Barras || talk 18:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I overlooked that. Prehaps we could use templates based on {{autolink}}? We could have one that decides "if this article exists, link to it, otherwise link to wiktionary". If I am correct (clarify this with Razorflame or somesuch), stubs that are close to dicdefs should automagically go to wikt:. MC8 (b · t) 22:49, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)
Barras? What do you think of that? MC8 (b · t) 22:19, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
I oppose. 1. Stubs do provide information, although it may not be a lot, and they are a good starting ground. 2. This plan will increase the workload on admins who could be doing better things (such as improving articles). 3. We should spend less time talking about stubs, and more time improving them. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you honestly telling people to go improve stubs? The guy who does nothing but tag articles and shoots down others work? -DJSasso (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  1) A starting ground, yes. A "good" starting ground? Open to debate. 2) Hitting the    delete    tab is a quick exercise, the addition is tiny. We also have enough admins to share the workload. 3) Problem is, there are too many stubs to make this option viable. MC8 (b · t) 23:01, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Answer to Q1: Yes, I am, and to Q2: That's not the only thing I do, probably less than 1/3 of my changes tag articles, and second part, since when do I shoot down other people's work? @MC8: Concede on point 1, they are a starting ground (especially for our new users), on 2, the admins will be busy deleting and restoring, and this WP will be filled with debate over which article should be restored and which one should be kept deleted, and on 3, If we focused on the important ones, or the ones that are visited the most, it would improve this WP for the readers. Once that's done, we could start working on the geo-stubs, musician stubs, etc. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
All I am trying to point out is that you shouldn't tell people they need to improve stubs when all you do is add tags when it would be much simpler to say go get reference for example. Especially when alot of time you can just go to the english version and grab a reference from there. I'm not saying you need to expand stubs cause everyone contributes in their own way, but if you are going to call people out you better make sure you are doing what you are saying they are not. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying (and others have said the same thing) is that we spend too much time discussing and not enough time working. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Right so go expand an article. :P -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Griffin: What do you mean "concede"? You've just restated your original opposition almost word for word. Two, I disproved the second point in that sentence, and we are a big wiki now. We can cope. Three is irrelevant to the discussion. We're already discussing it, don't tell us not to. Fflapjac! MC8 (b · t) 23:23, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)
From a good starting ground to starting ground, that's a difference (like GA and article). 2. We can cope, but it takes away editing time from our admins, who do great work in article space when they have the time. We lose more than we gain. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The point is that no time is realistically wasted deleting articles. It takes, ooh, fifteen seconds? MC8 (b · t) 23:30, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)
Plus debate. The questions above will be answered in different ways by users, and we will debate it for hours. We spend too much time in WP space as it is. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. Anyways, is there a problem with that? MC8 (b · t) 23:41, Thursday August 27 2009 (UTC)

<-Indeed. Anyways, per my above comments, the more we debate the less real work gets done. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed" does not answer the question. MC8 (b · t) 22:17, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
The 2nd sentence answers it. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Any other suggestions? I don't want this to drop off ST. MC8 (b · t) 23:04, Tuesday September 1 2009 (UTC)
Bump. MC8 (b · t) 16:55, Saturday September 5 2009 (UTC)
Bump. Only barras and Griffin are opposing this, and most people haven't replied. I feel that we really need this proposal to at least be discussed, and not becoming stale and dropping off the radar, like it is at the moment. Before anyone says tl; dr, here's the summary for you to talk about: 'we change the main deletion focus from notability to usability -- how useful is the end article to the user? To aid the discussion, I made a flowchart to outline my proposal. Simply put, someone asks just three questions: Is this article notable? Is it useful? Can we make it useful easily? -- this will eliminate several different articles in the bud. In essense, we change WP:QD#A4 to read "useful", not notable. MC8 (b · t) 18:00, Sunday September 13 2009 (UTC)
I think no responses is usually taken to meaning no one supports in a case like this. I know that is the case for me. I haven't spoken cause I don't have much to say and didn't see any support here for it so no need for me to voice my oppose. -DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
If this proposal is going to be approved by the community, there is this question: how are you going to evaluate the usefulness of an article? Usefulness covers a scope much broader than notability. Chenzw  Talk  16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)