Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 73

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

GA/VGA process again..

Hello,

I looked at the GA and VGA candidates again, and I also had a quick glance at the candidates. Here are a few observations:

  • We currently have few good candidates, is the GA/VGA system dying?
  • Many articles just 'sit there' (without much change apparent), so is there no change, or does the new system mean that the article needs to sit around for 3 weeks?
  • While voting in itself may be evil, I think the old system of first listing for comments/suggestions/whatever and then voting/expressing an opinion whether the candidate meets the criteria was clearer in many respects.

The last discussion is here.

Am I the only one worried, or do others share my worries? --Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the processes but less people are commenting with the new method. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I still like the old version. I think it was easier and clearer, even if voting is evil. Barras (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The old version was easier to understand. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  I think it's just having a go slow, the same thing happened at the start of the year. The new system does not mean that the article has to wait for 3 weeks, indeed it means it can go after 1 day pretty easily if it's clearly crap. People can express opinions and comment at the same time, that's the beauty of not voting. If an article is brilliant, it doesn't have to be tied up with formalities, and can be closed sooner, giving us more (V)GAs quicker. Instead of moaning, go nom some articles. Goblin 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
@ Above, that would be because you won't have taken time to look into it. It is a LOT clearer than the old system... Goblin 22:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
Just as note: I'm no longer that active in the process, because I don't really like it. (Even if it is just my opinion.) Barras (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Barras, sorry but that's pretty poor. If you're not here to try to get good or very good articles, what's the point? If you don't like the "system" then try to improve it. Your attitude is symptomatic of what is wrong with SEWP - "don't like this, not doing it" - so the Wikipedia dies. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I used the wrong words above: I'm not as active in the process as I was before the change. I'm still writing (V)GAs and I'm still looking for them, but I don't give my opinion to others, because I think the closing can simply be wrong. The other process was better. Interested users reviewed the article and gave comments to improve. In this first part took only a few users part. In the second part, the voting, took more users part, because they had simply to read the article and had to say Support, looks good. I'm not sure if such comment is in the new process allowed or will be count as support. I think this brings others to leave the process complete. I hope you understand now, why I'm not longer that active in the process as I were before the change. Barras (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a need to at least revert the PGA/PVGA system to its original state. Just look at the the PGA for Joe Biden. We have one editor claiming that criterion x is met while we have another opposing this. This quickly becomes a war. How are we going to achieve consensus like this? Remember that the ultimate thing we want is an article of high quality. This arguing does not make things better. Chenzw  Talk  13:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Joe Biden is a good example of what it should be like. People contesting that the article does not meet criteria, which after another look is not. That's clearly a "no consensus". Were it a vote, we would just have Opposes and Supports. Sorry, pointless topic. Goblin 13:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

(<-) Joe Biden is an example of being deadlocked, or otherwise a Yes it is, No it isn't; by basically two editors. Running out of editors who express an opinion is different from a no consensus vote (where people clearly agree that they disagree). Deadlock is different from not reaching consensus. --Eptalon (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Inti Chauveau

‎Inti Chauveau‎ is a strange article. I don't speak english but a teacher is not a actor?--Macassar (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears from a search online that he was in fact both, though I'm not totally sure if they were the same person or not. The actor definitely seems to be more notable if they are different. Is anyone able to tell (Pings Javert). Jamesofur (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Majorly's Talk Page?

I would like to talk with Majorly about some of my recent edits but his talk page is being protected so i can't communicate with him properly.

71.254.108.39 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Option one. Option two. Option three. MC8 (b · t) 23:25, Sunday September 20 2009 (UTC)
Leave a message here, and I will place it on Majorly's talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That is unbelievably overwhelmingly unrequired. MC8 (b · t) 23:28, Sunday September 20 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Majorly doesn't see it here, or on the IP's talk page, and the user doesn't want to do options 2 & 3, they don't have another choice, unless they went on IRC, which is very unlikely. I try to be welcoming. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I will see it here, so please don't duplicate it. Majorly talk 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Please just leave the message here, where I will see it. (This is why editors should have an account.) Majorly talk 23:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I won't, because you are here. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
If you wish, you can create an account. You'll have to wait four days after the creation of your account to comment on Majorly's talk page, because it is semi-protected—limited to accounts no less than a four day old account. —Mythdon (talk) (changes) 23:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Notability??? Majorly you just deleted like 4 of the stubs which you called unnotable what do other people think? Tempusername (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Because they didn't show any notability at all, I deleted them. What's the problem? We have enough one line stubs already. Please put a bit of effort into new articles before posting them, or instead work on ones we have already. Majorly talk 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I just want to say one more thing Majorly If its a pedia like this don't you want it to grow from stubs? thats all iam going to say good-bye. Tempusername (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather the existing articles were worked on before new ones were created. We've had a problem with one-line stubs before, and I'm just putting a stop to it before it goes too far. Majorly talk 16:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So Majorly ever time i create a new you call it a "one line stub" you will delete it? i put a little bit more effort into it. I give up i'am sorry if i have caused you Majorly any trouble or The Simple English Wikipedia community sorry. 169.244.143.123 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. Thanks for understanding. Majorly talk 16:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
All the unnecessary drama, just because someone wanted to say something to Majorly... Can't we find a solution for dealing with drama? Or do we just have to keep telling ourselves to go and write articles...? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
How about this; can a neutral user who hasn't participated in this discussion please archive this thread? —Mythdon (talk) (changes) 20:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be archived; just stop responding to it. :) EVula // talk // // 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, that would depend on the fact that no more drama-mongers edit this thread EvulA.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It was, perhaps, a little idealistic of me. ;) EVula // talk // // 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I was a former vandal. Not a major one on en.wikipedia.org just someone messing around on a public terminal from an IP address back in 2006. However, I've learnt since then and grown up. I'm not a vandal anymore. I would like to be helpful here, but don't in all honesty know how to (other things have taken up my time since). Also, for the record, I'm editing from a public terminal. Smiley.svg --Cevissa (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to help, so you can just have a look here, here and also here. Or just build articles. All help is welcome. Barras (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome, feel free to edit and cotribute in the fields that interest you. --Eptalon (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome from me too. You will be judged on your contributions here so if you want to make a positive impact then I'm sure you will. Welcome once again, enjoy your time here and don't hesitate to contact any of us for assistance with anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How to add comments to a talk page

I have tried to add some comments to User talk:Razorflame. They are about a 'bot' that the user has written. But the page has 'view source' instead of 'change this page'. What do I need to do? Jan1nad (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Option 1: Wait for few days to get autoconfirmed status. Option 2:Put the message here. Option 3: Email him. PmlineditorTalk 09:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try Option 2.Jan1nad (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is about 'Darkicebot'. User:Razorflame should put a statement on User:Darkicebot describing what the 'bot' is designed to do, and the rules that are used to do this. We could then see if there is a problem with the intention. We may be able to offer advice. Jan1nad (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We already know its an interwiki bot. When his flag was given back they just forgot to readd him to the list of bots and what they do. -DJSasso (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there anywhere I can read this information? Jan1nad (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that has been very helpful. Jan1nad (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very Good Pictures (again)

Hi all! I know this has been proposed and turned down in the past, but I'd like to suggest the starting of Very Good Pictures (equivalent to FPs at enwp). Last time around, the main concern was that the pics were not "ours", they "belonged to commons". Well, even at enwp, all FPs are free use and a majority of them are from Commons. I think this will generate interest among our editors and readers. If we start something like "Picture of the day", then it'll be a nice change to our Main Page. Yes, I accept that we must concentrate on article building, but then, very small projects have this feature, so I think we can start this. Regards, PmlineditorTalk 10:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely not. I might have been for it last time, but quite frankly we need to build up more content and keep current processes going rather than creating just another one that people can waste time on and avoid article work. So it's a big fat No. Goblin 11:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
I agree with BG7. We shouldn't do this. What would be the result of it? We would simply use enwiki's/common's FPs. We don't have our "own" pics. Barras (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the thing I must disagree with. Even at enwp, the pictures "belong" to commons. Ask anyone you want. This is one reason I can't accept. Regards, PmlineditorTalk 12:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
But how would this be beneficial? I'm pretty sure, that our users would just look at enwiki for FPs and nom them here. Result: We just copy enwiki. We are an other wiki. We don't want to be a "copy". Just for having it and showing which good pictures commons/en/de wiki have isn't a great thing. So we simply show: "Look, this picture was made by an commons user. Look, how great it looks at our main page." This isn't our own work. Barras (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The potential gain from this might be new editors. I don't think it would be too hard to do/maintain, and wouldn't mind helping. We could also just have them rotating like VGAs. I like the idea, but want you (Pmlinediter) to tell me what will SEWP gain from this. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
@Barras: Wrong again. Remember, FPC is different from a Commons picture getting recognition. At enwp, FPC states "must contribute to the article signficantly". We don't promote enwp FPs. We promote those used here, which are important to the article. @Yot: Well, I believe that the main attraction of having such a process will be gaining new editors. I bet many people will think "Oh wow, what a nice picture on the Main Page. This wiki might be good to contribute to." Others, specially those from Commons, might come here to edit. Well, there are more and more; expect to get a complete reply tomorrow. ;) PmlineditorTalk 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bluegoblin on this also. I'm not sure if we can handle another something such as this. GA, VGA, and DYK are fine for now. Maybe in the future we could consider adding featured pictures, but now doesn't seem to be a reasonable time. — RyanCross (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical note

Bureaucrats now have the ability to remove +sysop per the recent discussion and bug. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying bureaucrats can revoke administrator rights? And can you please link to the "recent discussion"? —Mythdon (talk) (changes) 21:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thats what it looks like--Eptalon (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... interesting. —Mythdon (talk) (changes) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It was discussed here. EhJJTALK 22:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yay, paranoia has finally lost a wiki-battle! I'm pretty happy about this. EVula // talk // // 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Now let's get this done at enwiki :) –Juliancolton | Talk 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You got as much chance of doing that there as you have in desysopping inactive users. -- Mentifisto 09:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying it won't happen? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
He is saying changes happen on en rarely. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bot proposal

I'm thinking of writing a bot to create redirects. Information is at User:EhJBot/Proposal. Please leave comments there. EhJJTALK 22:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So far I have one supporting and one opposing comment. Even if you don't care, please leave a note saying so! A little direction at this point could save us all a lot of headache later. Thanks! EhJJTALK 13:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you to those who commented about my bot above or on IRC. As you can see below, my bot has been approved and flagged. As always, let me know if you notice it doing anything incorrect (it shouldn't, but I already know it doesn't handle Unicode particularly well). Regards, EhJJTALK 02:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Remember this guy? He's grown up now...

Remember this guy?? Well, apparently, he seems to have remorse for his actions. Before you ask, no, I'm not him, nor was I recruited here by him. (also, he was about 15-16 when he started his vandalism with friends at high school, he's now 19, and in a year from now, well, he's 20!)

He's admitted to me privately he's been an idiot, and f***ed up the sites, but now finds vandalism boring. He said when he found a vandalised article on something he liked (Liverpool F.C.) it stopped him from doing it, and gave him a reality check.

I'm not asking for an unban, just explaining. He is "emotionally different". As for his choice of username, well, it was plagiarism (and the owner of the website with that name has forgiven him for it), but he's decided to move on now. I'm here to edit some other stuff and so am not singlepurpose account.

Anyway, that's my speech over and done with. Apologies for his behaviour, yes, he is emotionally different, but he's now found other outlets for if he gets pent-up anger/energy and has realized a wiki is not for that. He now wants to be a "proper editor", if there's such a thing. Kurt aka --Kulffeb (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Very suspicious... I remember a similar thing at YW, and suggest a CU... (Though WP:DUCK could apply) Goblin 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Well, for the record, just because I know him doesn't make me his sockpuppet, I am only trying to say something positive here. (Oh, and as for him at YW, well, he's never been seen on there since). Kurt --Kulffeb (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It's also suspicious that the second edit you made here is at Simple Talk at this discusssion. --Bsadowski1 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

EhJBot

Seems to be a 'bot but hiding bot edits in my "New changes" makes no difference for this "bot". I'm off to bed but this needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it has the flag. EhJJTALK 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Trial. Doesn't have the flag yet. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. It's flooding new changes and its edits can't be switched off. Bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you flag it then, Mr. Crat? EhJJTALK 22:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you request the flag for your bot and did you go through the regular approval channels? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the flooding. Special:NewPages allows you to turn off redirects, but Special:RecentChanges does not. I'm editing 1 per minute to prevent flooding. I guess I'll hold off until a crat can flag the bot. EhJJTALK 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Did you request the flag for your bot and did you go through the regular approval channels? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's a request at Wikipedia talk:Bots. EhJJTALK 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
WT:BOT. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TRM! EhJJTALK 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pinning certain discussions?

Hello,

does anybody know if Miszabot allows to "pin" certain discussions, so they don't get archived; I just cleared "Any point" (3 times in the archive, not cleared here); I am unsure whether this is a bug, or intentional, though.

Just a quick note, help appreciated.--Eptalon (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been a bot hiccup...--Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it was a bug. I noticed the same thing while searching the Simple talk archives. Hopefully it's the only hiccup this bot has had recently! EhJJTALK 22:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a bug, did it on my personal talk page on en as well. -DJSasso (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I observed the same problem again today; main problem seems to be that articles are not cleared from the main page once they have been archived (and therefore get archived multiple times).--Eptalon (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should message the operator and ask if he knows about it. He may not be aware. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is. <!-- 00:00, 31 December 3000 -->. MC8 (b · t) 23:15, Sunday September 27 2009 (UTC)
His comment on en This is related to recent problems with the MediaWiki upgrade - the simplewiki configuration file was missing an important setting. I believe the bot should be working correctly now. Миша13 07:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC) -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

I would like to become a part of the Wiki community, but it seems most of you speak a different language...I've worked through the tutorials and still feel lost. Any suggestions? Should I just leave it alone altogether? I've been successful in minor edits and things, but still feel like I'm out of the loop. I also had an article entitled "ServejesusForReal.com deleted twice, and it was an unfinished article...help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jailman3 (talkcontribs)

It was an advert and non-notable. Thank you for your understanding. Pmlineditor  16:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Umm... "most of you speak a different language". No, we all speak English and would like to help you. You're welcome to stay and edit constructively; however please refrain from advertising or vandalising since you may be blocked. Pmlineditor  16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
We speak English, but sometimes we use acronyms about our Wikipedia:rules. Your article ServeJesusForReal.com appears to have been deleted since it was written like an advertisement. We are an encyclopedia and articles must be written in an encyclopedic tone. EhJJTALK 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Be kind

I've noticed a lot of incivility over the past few days and I'd like to remind all users to be kind. I'll definitely be sending out gentle reminders from now on to users who are being downright rude to other users. No matter how annoying a user may be, please be kind (civil) and discuss the matter in a calm way. I am particularly displeased with admins who have said some very unprofessional and mean things. Its not great if this wiki to overly kind to vandals, but it's much worse if we're overly mean to each other! Vandals can be dealt with without resorting to name calling or insults. Please review Wikipedia:Be kind if you need to. In good faith, EhJJTALK 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:This is not directed at any one in particular and I'm not interested in who-did-what or collecting diffs. I am simply asking users to be kinder in the future. Thanks! EhJJTALK 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with EhJJ totally on this topic. It's actually been happening for months off and on. fr33kman talk 01:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, EhJJ. I have seen users engaging in incivility a lot, though, I won't be naming or pointing to any particular incidents as you clarify that you won't do, and because this thread is "not directed at any one in particular". —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 02:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

tags on articles

Per this proposal, please have some bots move the tags on talk pages. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How come I wasn't aware of this until now? Oh yeah, because it's in an archive. --Bsadowski1 20:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No-one appears to be aware of this. It's not been made known wiki-wide and furthermore 3 days and no close does not mean it's taking place. Stop moaning about useless, pointless policies and make some articles. Current tags do not need to be removed, they need to be fixed and removed. Who gives a flying fuck where the tags go, just fix them and move along and build a wiki. FFS. Goblin 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
I don't know if a bot exists that can do that, but I'm sure one could be made. I'm not convinced that it was decided to move them, and if they are moved, whether the language in the tags should be changed and/or our policy pages changed to reflect this. EhJJTALK 21:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Of the users that commented, all were in favor. It stayed out longer than 3 days, and I assumed that of the users that were interested, all had expressed their opinion. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
But not everyone was aware of this new policy. --Bsadowski1 21:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Now, I realize that, but not everyone can be notified, but I'm sure that more people knew about the thread but just didn't comment on it. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? Everyone cannot be notified?. If you want it implemented, then bring it up again. As it stands, a formal agreement was not made, and therefore any changes could be reverted, if it was a big deal. But, it's not, so I really don't care, and I don't think you should either, i.e. go write some bleeping articles. Goblin 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
I can't help but wonder how much this has to do with who is making this suggestion than what it is about. Kindly review WP:NPA? EhJJTALK 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Honest answer, both. It's a user who never contributes to anything outside of pointless things that do not need doing, and its a pointless proposal that is only going to chew up resources by editing and only going to create confusion. Why not fix the current tags? As I saiy, it does not matter where they go, in fact, I question whether they are even needed. If people NPPd some more (as people apparently do...) they could fix them without tagging. A fix is better than a tag. Goblin 21:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

<-- Instead of commenting on an archived discussion I'll comment here. As anyone who looks at my contributions here and elsewhere can see I rarely use tags. However I do look at them regularly and think they can be very helpful when someone reads the article. Having problems with tags because they are repetitive or problematic in other ways is fine and needs to be looked at and fixed if possible (sometimes repetitive is unavoidable). That being said however, I seriously disagree with moving most tags on the talk page. Are there some tags that maybe could be moved there?.. maybe but I can't think of any at the moment. I read talk pages when I read articles, especially on EnWiki, because you often see more information about the subject there amid the discussions. I have a feeling however that most people do NOT. If you have the tags on the main page you are a lot more likely to have someone read the article, see the tag and work to fix the article. That of course is the whole point of the tags in the first place and I don't think expecting everyone to read the talk page for every article they read is a good assumption for us to make and would therefore almost guarantee some amount of fixes not being made that would have been in the past. I assume that the biggest problem with them on the main page is for aesthetics (how the page looks)? If that is the case then I would say aesthetics is less important then function and they should therefore stay on the page. TLDR: Important to keep on main page, looks less important then function Jamesofur (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree. I think aesthetics is more important than the function of most of these tags serve. If there is a huge need to have the tags then put them on the talk page where people who edit are likely to still see them. I don't think these tags help at all except to add the category to the page that represents what the problem is. Beyond that there is no need to have a big box at the top of the page saying its missing sources when you can see ont he page that the article is missing sources since there are no sources under the references heading. Just like its blatantly obvious that the page needs to be wikified if there are no wikilinks on it, so you don't need a box telling you its needed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much what i've been trying to say... fix what's wrong with the article as there is no need for the tags as it's clearly wrong. I disagree with the tags full stop, and mass moving them to talk pages is completely pointless. Can a sensible admin come and close this please and stop the nonsense. Goblin 16:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!
We're pretty much wasting our time. We don't need ten big boxes to show that an article is bad the reader himself can understand that. PmlineditorTalk 09:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression we respected one another here, and that foul language was not used, and was surprised to find the language in this article was otherwise...Jailman3 (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jailman, First off I adjusted your comment so that it wasn't in the odd blue box it was in earlier. Usually we try not to adjust someone else's comments so I hope you don't mind but I wanted to make sure others were able to read it as easy as possible, I didn't delete any content of course. Your right, Alot of us who have been around for a while can get carried away with our talk. Usually this is because we care about the project and the work that it does and want to see the best thing happen, but disagree. Occasionally someone gets to a point where they are unable to work with the rest of the community but that is something that we try to avoid as much as possible. Like you I am new compared to a lot of editors here and I still find myself with strong opinions when I've seen things play out. Probably one of the most important things to remember is that we need to keep that respect for each other, and we all have to remember it sometimes. Any group, community or project where people are unable to respect each other is doomed to failure. Jamesofur (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(V)GA process..

Hello again, I may have already brought this up, the (V)GA process was one of the things that seemed to work on this wikipedia, that is until it was changed recently. Beforehand, we had a multi-stage process, with first commenting and improving the candidate, and then voting if it should be promoted or not. This was then changed, as we all know voting is evil, and cannot replace a discussion. Now, the process is supposedly based on consensus. I don't know about other editors, but at least I am now totally unsure about several things:

  • At what time sholud an article be promoted?
  • Given we totally have abolished the multiple stage process, some comments refer to versions of the article that have since changed. The comments may no longer be pertinent, should they still be taken into account?

While many people seem to advocate the system of discussing rather than voting, what are the steps we can undertake to make the process more manageable?- The theaory was that any editor should be able to promote articles/close the discussions, yet judging consensus, picking the right time are skills the community ecxpects bureaucrats to have. If we cannot get the new system to be as manageable as the old, I suggest we undo the changes and return to a system that had its (well-known) weak points, but otherwise seemed to have worked reasonably well...--Eptalon (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought we still had a three week period from nomination to promotion. Your say that "comments refer to versions of the article that have since changed" - this has always been the case. In most cases, using the old system, people rarely looked at articles until they were up for voting, so the version under review was always changing. We should not revert to bean-counting to promote articles. We need well-reasoned discussion. Far too many times articles received a bandwagon of support, then someone popped up and said "hang on, this is wrong..." and then all the support votes became oppose votes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
We need a system that:
  • Is easy to understand
  • Works at least as well as the old one
  • Can be operated by any (named) user
  • Does not penalize the creation of better quality articles
I am pragmatic, I want a solution that works out; I am not clinging to the old system. All i say is: what we currenlty have does not work as well, so should be improved.--Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The current system works (I believe) using a consensus-based approach. It's got a three-week limit from nomination which is pretty clear. Anyone can operate it. I'm not sure how it could "penalize the creation of better quality articles". It actively encourages people to "think" and be constructive and not just go straight into "voting". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Being honest, the new system does not work. Let's go back to the old one which was good! Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's really not very informative. Perhaps you could suggest why the old system of voting was so "good!"? And also explain why the new system "does not work"? Please consider that this Wikipedia is written for people in Simple English, not by people using Simple English. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You only have to look at the drama that it's created and the participation level. If not the old one, then a new one done by stages. The current one isn't organized enough. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, we have more PGAs and PVGAs than we've ever had. And you're the one creating the drama. So...mmm.. think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What kind of accusation is that? Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The kind that says "We've got more and better quality participation in PGA and PVGA than ever before while you're saying 'the old system was good!'". Drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You're the one creating the drama here accusing me. You know damn well I'm not trying to create drama, and I know you have something against me (I don't care about that...) but this is going off topic. Please feel free to come and accuse me on me talk page. I believe that's what they're for. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against anything. You came here to simply state "I like the old system. It's better" which is the equivalent of saying "I like strawberry ice-cream". You then said the current system created drama and had fewer participants. I'm saying the only drama is created here by these types of discussion and the level and quality of participation in the current process is way better than before. And no, talk pages are not for "accusations", not in my world, they're used to promote useful discussion about Wikipedia and its articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I said Being honest, the new system does not work. Let's go back to the old one which was good!. It is a proposal to go back to the old system, it's not simply stating I like the old system as you said. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 11:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous answer. Current system has better quality participation and is therefore going to produce better quality articles. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I still want the old system back. It was much easier to close a discussion even if voting is evil. We aren't that many editors here and it takes much more time to decide if there is a concensus about something or not, esp. when the discussion is about 20(?)kb like this one on Joe Bidden. I'm not willing to close any of this discussion. This is too much work and needs to much time. Please go back to the old system with the to steps. Barras (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion is good. Much better than voting to support a friend's article. The voting here was appalling, people were supporting dross. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • But if there were 5 supports and one oppose with a good reasons and many concerns, so the article wouldn't have been promoted. Barras (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, according to the previous rules, it would have been promoted. A purely statistical approach was mandated by the so-called "good" old system. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My understanding of this: New system creates drama? Yes, it does. Is it better than the old system? Yep, it is. Remember (V)GA should be about consensus and Voting isn't Consensus. I don't believe that the new system is harming the project; instead I find it rather better. Earlier, it was like "OMG, you have to fix this in 1 day" but now you get time to work well, slowly and improve articles. Best regards, Pmlineditor  15:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
As I was the one who devised the new system, I should probably comment. I will be doing this in the next few days, but right now i'm extremely busy IRL so it will have to wait for a while. Regards, Goblin 16:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

Volunteers Needed

Hi all,
Although we will soon remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area advisors or to sit on task forces that will study particular topics and make recommend short- and long-term strategies for the Wikimedia projects and Foundation, and the wiki movement.

To apply to serve on a task force or be an advisor in a specific area, visit http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is a year-long collaborative process being hosted at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome there, and will drive the process. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and anyone may join fully in their work. We hope to include as many community members as possible in the process.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment?

What ever happened with making assessment scales?(Stub, Start, C, B, A, GA, VGA) I found a few things that said no because there were only 20k articles and half of those would be stubs. What is the status now that there are more then 50k? I am too lazy to dig any more. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was always in favor of this. Pmlineditor  07:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say we are still at a no stage, the only reason that english has them is because they were trying to assess articles to add to a published CD. Our wiki is still far to small to support or maintain such a ranking system. I would say we wouldn't need such a thing until we were in the multiple hundreds of thousands of articles. Even then I would say we probably don't need such a thing as assessments are rarely maintained even on english wikipedia beyond the GA/FA level. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We currently have: stub, regular article, GA, VGA. Can you come up with sensitive criteria about subclassing further?--Eptalon (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite so. We have insufficient time to actually improve articles, let alone assess them beyond the criteria described by Eptalon. Go make a stub into a VGA! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I would get Charizard and other Pokemon to VGA, but I wouldn't know what to add without copying en.wiki. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) The information about the subject has to come from somewhere; the problem is not that another Wikipedia has an article with similar information, but that such articles are often written in a language that is difficult to understand. If you compare a few of our Good or Very Good articles to their EnWP counterparts you will probably see what I mean. One of the ways to improve the sales of a product is to improve the packaging, so to speak. The candy is still the same, but it is packaged differently...--Eptalon (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying use most of the information from En.wiki, but try to simplify it as best as we can? I just wasn't sure if a copied article would pass GA or VGA reviews. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't copy from enwp. We try to extract all the info and wrap it in Simpler English. The sources too may be taken or they may be our own. Pmlineditor  16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In case you're confused (I was until re-reading...), the short answer is yes, you can use the information from enWP. However don't copy it word-for-word, as it won't be simple and it would also be a copyvio if it wasn't attributed to enWP. So basically, if you use information from enWP you need to extract (pull out) the key information and then re-write it in a way that is simple to understand. Then, just nominate it for GA or VGA and the community will let you know how to proceed! Any help, you're welcome to message me on my talk. Goblin 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!
People can choose to write articles in simple English from scratch, but as a good "guide" of some sort, people also base articles from en.wikipedia and convert them to simple English here, which is completely fine, as long as the article is simple. Being simple is all that really matters, it doesn't matter how you do it, it just has to be simple. We are Simple English Wikipedia anyway. ;-) Anything works, just remember: Simple! — RyanCross (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PGAs, PVGAs and DYKs - i.e. the important bits!

Folks, we have quite a few of the above sitting, waiting for reviews, comments etc. Let's put dramaz to one side for a bit and engage in the important bit - writing the encyclopedia and making it better? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to review DYKs again, and I'll talk a look at PGA and PVGA and see if I could do anything. Thanks for the note. — RyanCross (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter (again)

Previous discussions: 1, 2

Ok, I know this might have been rejected in the past... but really... considering the level of Proxy and other vandalism, I propose that we enable Abuse Filter. Most of you know its use... for more info see en:Wikipedia:Edit filter. It's much better than using blacklists and I see the project benefiting from its installation. Pmlineditor  16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • We only have surges of vandalism, and they are handled quickly. I see that out small group, attempting to handle the complex abuse filters, may result in many false positives. I do not support it for this wiki, for that purpose. While attempting to continue free access, and editing of content, I only see the abuse filter getting in the way of that on this wiki. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Handled quickly"? Not really. Look at what happened last night - no admins around, no stewards around. We don't want libelous content in the wiki for 1-2 hours, do we? Pmlineditor  16:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you show diffs? NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at Special:DeletedContributions/216.227.214.95. Vandalism starts at 10:24, blocked an hour later by Yot. James almost contacted a sysadmin for dealing with him. No stewards, no admins around then. Pmlineditor  17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this is on exceptional case. It is not the norm, and does not justify enabling such a strong response, with the risks. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Enabling the Abuse Filter is a fantastic idea. There have been times in the last 3 or 4 days, when my personal information has stayed visible on wiki for upwards of 30 minutes. And really, the few filters that we would need on this wiki wouldn't be that difficult to maintain. Over all, this idea is fabulous. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Or local policy does permit stewards to perform oversight in the event that local oversighters or unable to perform for whatever reason (absent). NonvocalScream (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Point is... we aren't going to enable 200 filters like enwp. Only the best... the most reliable. We don't want articles like "XXX is a piece of shit" or "Fuck XXX". Pmlineditor  09:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And I'm tired of seeing my real name in article titles about different sex acts I perform on various editors here. If those types of page creations are disallowed by the abuse filter, there will be a lot less shit to clean up. – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly not. We have measures that work perfectly well, and I'm not feeling confident that (m)any of our users know regex well enough - copying from en is not good enough as they will have filters that won't apply from us. It just creates more work than it saves. Goblin 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
How will you oversight if there aren't oversighters? And I don't consider Titleblacklist or Usernameblacklist reliable. And GBot4 can't delete pages. Pmlineditor  16:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There's not a pressing need for any of this to be done. If things are there for an hour, does it really matter? Not really. We've not had any really bad incidents, and most of the "xxx's mom is raped by yyy" or whatever really isn't major. Title and username blacklists work if people use them correctly... and if we can't get the regex there working correctly, what hope have we got for Abuse Filter which is much more powerful? Finally, GB4 could be made to delete/be an admin bot if people desired it, but it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, things can also be deleted and then removed later on. And don't forget these guys! Goblin 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!
Umm... I thought one had someone's RL name? Pmlineditor  16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There's still not a particularly pressing need. If people are releasing their real names then they need to accept what could happen. I have, and quite frankly, I don't care. If, however, it's /not/ been released, then yes, there's a problem; and if there are no OSs about, we call in the Stews or higher. Goblin 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!
  • Perhaps we could test run the filters in log only mode for a bit? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this would deffinitly be what we want to do if we activate the filter. I'm of a mixed mind leaning towards Support. I think it could be very helpful BUT as some people have said if you don't know what your doing you can screw things very easily. There are a couple people here who I would trust to either edit it now or read up on the syntax and edit it then and if they do it we shouldn't have a problem. If we can't trust people who don't know what they're doing to keep off it then we shouldn't activate. Jamesofur (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments

over here. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple?

Please explain. — This unsigned comment was added by RocketMaster (talk • changes).RyanCross (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple English is for people learning a new language, or for people who just cant understand the big words everyone uses on en.wiki. Its the English Wikipedia, but simplified. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Err... no. Read Wikipedia:About, or check your welcome template. We Are Not the English Wikipedia simplified, we are a completely separate wiki with different aims and goals. Regards, Goblin 14:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!
Basically, simpleWP is for people who may have a more limited understanding of grammar, or less of a working vocabulary than say a native English speaker who has a university level education. Many of our readers may themselves be very well educated in their native language but lack a fluent understanding of English. Other readers may be English speaking children who can't read many of the complex articles on enWP; still others may have learning disabilities. It's important to understand that not everyone has the same abilities in English, we are here for them. Hope this helps. fr33kman talk 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Reading Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia and Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages should help a bit. — RyanCross (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages‎

I have noticed that indef blocked sockpuppet accounts are being placed in this category, and as such are to be deleted after one month. I think this is a bad idea. The reason being, it makes sockpuppet investigations harder to do. When someone has to search and search and search for an account to compare a possible sockpuppet against when they could have easily found it by looking in the respective sockmasters category, it wastes the reporters time. Also I noticed that the wording at CAT:TEMP contradicts itself. It states: "This category is contains userpages of indefinitely blocked users." But then goes onto say: "The following pages should not be in this category, and therefore shouldn't be deleted: Talkpages of indefinitely blocked users." I am recommending that we clarify that, and remove all sockpuppet accounts from this category. Tiptoety talk 03:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we agreed in the past not to delete these. Looks like barras added the category to the sockpuppet template a month ago. This didn't happen in the past and I am not sure if anyone deleted any because they only recently were put in the cat. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone is on it. Tiptoety talk 03:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As a CU, I'd have to say that deleting these would be a bad idea. Any sock accounts are right to be removed from the cat. fr33kman talk 04:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability and towns

Following this discussion [1] on notability of Xavier, Kansas I believe the consensus was that "all towns are notable". I view of that decision, I will remove the QD tags put on a number of US towns by Razorflame. I don't believe we reached a consensus on one sentence stubs, but some one else may remember. (If we have decided to delete one sentence stubs then apologies to Razorflame and I'll delete the pages myself). --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed right now three other qds by Razorflame on football articles. Barras (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Towns are not notable just for existing. That's not how Wikipedia works. We are not a directory of every place that ever existed. Articles should have some substance that's more than informing us of its existence, location and population. We should not say all of something is something, we should look at things on their own merits. Majorly talk 10:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We tried already to mass delete the oneline american town stubs, but the request for deletion was to keep them. Now we have to live with the result and the existing articles. It was a community decission, even if I think we should delete them. Best Barras (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The criteria is extremely clear, Barras. Articles that show no notability are deleted per under A4. This applies to towns, cities, people, everything. I've deleted the tagged articles. People can recreate them if/when notability is shown. Until then, they are simply directory pages (created using AWB) that don't actually contain any encyclopedia information. Majorly talk 10:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Our Community thinks we should keep these not useful articles. Make an RFD, and don't overturn an other admin's decission to remove the qd. Barras (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Majorly is right on this; I suggest the rest of you re-read deletion policy. One-line stubs are deletable under QD#A4, and this is not wheel-warring other otherwise, it's a perfectly legitimate delete. Just because on admin turns it down it doesn't mean that another has to. Majorly has also stated that he has deleted them in the ongoing discussion here. You'll find that the Commune RfDs were kept because many of the articles actually contain substance beyond one-liners. Furthermore, mass RfDs are not a good thing as people won't look at every article in the RfD. Things change, accept it. Goblin 10:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!
We tried already to delete useless town stubs which only say that there is a town and no more. But our community decided to keep the articles. I agree that these articles should be deleted, but an admin isn't allowed to work and delete against community consensus. Barras (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
... did you not read what I just wrote? Goblin 11:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
Oh, that means if I tag every day 10 to 20 articles with a qd tag they will be deleted? This is at the end the same. Barras (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Having read the above, the consensus was quite clear about towns being notable, whether they were one line stubs or not. I believe my decision to remove the qd tag was correct, and that the subsequent deletion was against the community's earlier decision. Why waste time going over issues again, this one certainly has been discussed many times. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
RFDs do not make precedent or policy. Policy should be followed, and policy states that articles that do not show any notability get deleted per QD#A4. Disagree? Take it up at the QD talk page. We have enough useless stubs polluting Wikipedia as it is. I'm not going on a deleting spree, but I will tend to delete such articles as and when I see them. There is nothing wrong with what I'm doing. Majorly talk 11:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Just delete such articles per A4 imo. Lets not be too bureaucratic. Pmlineditor  11:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That is what I am doing, Pmlinediter. Some people apparently have a problem with me following policy. Majorly talk 11:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not one of them... Pmlineditor  11:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Click ten times the "Random page" link and you will find at least 3 useless town stubs. They community doesn't want them to be delete, because they are notable in their opinion. Furthermore, you overturned the decission of admins who declined the qd requests. That isn't how an admin should be. Please restore them. (I really think they should be deleted, because they are useless, but admins are here to do what the whole community decided. Look at the RFDs linked above). Barras (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what a shame our encyclopedia is polluted with directory articles. Who is the community you speak of? I am certainly a member of it, and I don't want them. You admit you don't want them. Pmlinediter seems to not want them. BG7 seems to not want them, as does Razorflame. That a few people commented on an RfD does not suddenly change policy. Consensus can change, and the RfDs above do not apply to these articles, as BG7 already explained to you.
I will not be restoring correctly deleted articles – personally, I feel an admin who declines policy-based taggings of articles is not how an admin should be. Please show me a policy that counters QD#A4, if you can. A deletion discussion does not trump policy. Majorly talk 11:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
You were not following policy when you deleted the article on the Wales national football team. This was not a one line stub. I had put a Wait tag on the article, and another admin removed the qd tag. The policy says "If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead." Two admins at least thought the article was notable. It was on a national football team - can a football team be any more notable than that? And yet Majorly deleted it. So yes I do have a problem with you following policy. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please remember that we didn't right here now for long time (just a few hours) and that not everyone can be online. I'm pretty sure, that others will have an other opinion. It could also be possible that their opinion has changed, but I fully disagree with this administrative decission. Barras (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
...Apart from QD#A4 - does not show any notability. It was a one-line stub, just padded out with a couple of tables. Nothing was there to show any notability, which is required. Articles are supposed to show notability, not just assume it because of mere existence. What is your policy for keeping an article that clearly meets quick-deletion criteria? Majorly talk 11:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually the word national in the title is a claim of notability which is all it needs to do in order to not be elligable for QD#A4. Secondly you are incorrect that Rfd's can't set prescedent or policy. If the majority of the community goes one way on a topic, you can consider the policy changed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, on both points. Regarding the second point, RFDs absolutely do not set precedent and nor do they change policy - the way to do this is to go to the policy talk page and discuss there. That three people decided to comment on a request (as one of them was), it doesn't suddenly change the way things have been for years. It needs broader discussion in an appropriate forum. It's clear that people obviously don't agree on this, so the worst way is to follow what an RFD said, and the "decision" of those who bothered to take part. Policy should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. If you want the policy to be changed, the talk page is there for a reason. Majorly talk 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Then maybe you should use that page to discuss changing #A4 to remove the clause about a disagreement about nobility (which we clearly have here given that the QD tags were removed prior to deletion indicating that the editor in question clearly disagreed with the status of notability) disallows the use of QD on the article. The Deletion policy clearly states that they cannot be quick deleted and should be put through the RfD process instead. 70.174.36.23 (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Even if I did agree with you Majorly, there is policy that says you can't QD something that was kept at Rfd. Which means all towns are unelligable for QD. (also the wales national team mentions a world cup appearance which would also be a claim of notability) -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, since most people think the quick deletion regulations as applied here is purely bureaucratic, why not renominate the oneline city stubs for deletion. No rules as far as I can tell about renominating things for deletion. And, from my point of view, while some people may be aware that the Wales national football team is notable, the page currently provides no verifiable source to back up this notability. So some readers would be completely in the dark as to what makes this particular group notable. And saying "national" in the title bestows instant notability, that's simply untrue. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't think a team being called the national team wouldn't make a very large number of people in Wales know who they are? While yes it needs references, I fully agree. QD#A4 isn't a method to delete any article without a reference. It just means no claim of notability was made. And even if the word national doesn't infer instant notability (which I agree it probably doesn't), it does make it a claim of notability which is all that is required. And yes, in order to delete the towns a new rfd would be required so if people wish them gone then they should relist them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to consider our readers. What if our reader (who could be American say) doesn't know where Wales is and doesn't know the significance of association football? This renders the article useless. We need verifiable sources to establish notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I am definately not saying we don't need references. I am just saying they should be tagged as unreferenced or better yet fixed. But deleting articles that are about clearly notable things just because someone is too lazy to fix them is not the way to go. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
TRM, your comment sounds like an article about the British or German nationalteam woithout sources could be deleted as well... I feel not that I should agree. Barras (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, at the very least, they should be tagged as unreferenced. But actually, England and Germany have won the World Cup, so as long as that is noted then at least some "notability" is asserted. It should still be verified though. We have FAR too many articles without a single reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No they should not be tagged as unreferenced, since they are stubs. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, why shouldn't we reference stubs? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No they should be referenced, but they should not be tagged as such (only stubs). I have a thread somewhere that says so. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, so in the resultant extra time we could work on expanding said stubs. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Griffin is referring to a thread where he was told to stop tagging every single single line stubs as unreferenced because he was flooding RC and it was obvious they were unreferenced because well they were only a single line long. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Not single line long..I was tagging stubs in general, and I think I requested bot flag for it too. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahah, I get it now. Okay, well I think there's a general agreement that the Wales (and England and Germany) national football team articles are not "one-line stubs" and need references. We're also probably in agreement that all articles should ideally be referenced, no matter how long they are. As for flooding RC, well that's why we have the flood flag. Finally, the single-sentence stubs about X city in Y county which just say "X is a city in Y", well we're all probably in agreement that they add absolutely NOTHING to this Wikipedia other than make the "Show any page" a tiresome experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually think they are more likely to draw in a new editor. Someone looks up their hometown and sees it doesn't have much...so they expand it. And in that process find they enjoy editing the wiki and move onto other articles. I think and of course I have no facts to back it up that hometowns are probably highly searched by people. I know it was one of the first things I found and started updating when I first joined en.wiki many years ago. So I view such articles as very important. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't. And most of our readership is just that, readers, not editors. The fact that when I click "Show any page" ten times I get three unrerefenced one-line stubs about cities in America, three unreferenced one-line stubs (with a template) French communes and two football stubs which say "X is a Yian footballer" is testimony to the fact that these stubs just aren't working. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I guess I just fall into the category of some information is better than no information. I think we are too hung up on the random article link. How many people other than editors actually hit that I wonder. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not hung up on the button, it's just a useful way of working out how much of our Wikipedia is crappy one-line unreferenced stubs. And it's clear that it's a large proportion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Hello there, I was the one who originally brought up the "cities in Kentucky", a few articles which read "X is a city in Kentucky". My opinion on the notability of places: A place is notable (and not up for quick deletion) if at least one applies:

  • It is historically significant, because something important (notable) happened there
  • More can be said on the place that is covered by pure population statistics
  • The article in question is longer than 3-4 sentences, or can be made longer than 3-4 sentences. As a rule of thumb: If you can write 4 sentences which do not talk about population statistics, the place is probably notable, by these "criteria".

Most of the cities in Kentucky (a few hundred, I think) were created by one editor; I think spending the same time on getting perhaps two or three of these cities to a decent level of coverage would have been better than a "collect them all" approach. After all, about half of the people in Kentucky live in like 10-12 cities. If someone is really interested in US geography, there are fifty states; for each state, get the state capital and the biggest/most important city of the state...--Eptalon (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I was thinking when I was tagging them for quick deletion: A) They fell under the A4 clause of quick deletion which states that if they don't have a claim of notability, then they can be speedily deleted and B) They were one line stubs which were not going to get expanded. They were valid quick deletion tags and if administrators are starting to not follow even the simplest of deletion policies, then I do not know what the future of this project is. People need to start looking at the facts before they start removing quick deletion tags that were valid in the first place. Stop creating unnecessary drama when you could have easily deleted them and moved on. Razorflame 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per our WP:Deletion policy, "... If not everyone agrees that the subject is not notable or there has been a previous RfD, the article may not be quickly deleted, and should be discussed at RfD instead ..." - and as noted above, this means we shouldn't be QD#A4'ing stubs which have survived an RFD. Like it or not Razorflame, this isn't admins creating drama, this is just the community realising that the previous RFD probably had the wrong result. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Should we perhaps do a regular RfD for the hundreds of cities in Kentucky (which read 'X is a city in Kentucky')? - The old decision is some time back, and the community may decide differently this time? --Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That is the only way to go if someone really wants them gone. But I think it will be a truely dark day for this wiki if we delete clearly notable articles just because they were stubs. It was bad enough we wiped out the asteroids which I was a part of, and I was worried then that it would be a slippery slope, and sure enough it was. No wiki should be wiping out articles on clearly notable topics, no matter their size. While cities may or may not be notable to people individually, wikipedia's definition of notable means they have been written about in multiple reliable sources, if you can find a single town in the world that hasn't been written about twice I would be shocked. People always think notable means more than what it actually is. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well you see that's the problem. To me, a one line stub about a nowhere place in a nothing state of America, how is that notable? They may be "clearly notable" to you, but probably not to millions of others. If I started creating stubs on villages and towns near where I live, I doubt they'd survive more than two seconds because no-one else on this Wiki would have heard of them. You can claim "notability" all you like but without "verifiability", you're wasting your time. Cite the stubs or bin them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not hard, since the U.S. government would have records on them. The only problem is that it would be extremely time-consuming. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, bit we don't in general just delete everything with no source when its something that people know there are sources for. Every town will have sources. I don't know most of these towns just like millions of others proably don't, but as long as enough people did to have written about it that is all that is needed. We mark them as stub and then people find sources for them. Open an atlas, and the towns are instantly verified. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. "As long as enough people did to have written about it"? Virtually all these stubs were created by a bot. I've never heard of virtually any of these "cities" in Kentucky. There's nothing to verify they exist. "Extremely time-consuming"? That's our job, to get on with it. Otherwise who's to say these cities are just made up? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
When I say enough people wrote about it, I mean sources not editors. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Only if they're used as references. Otherwise who knows how many people has written about them? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
As it happens, Barras has got the right idea. I find it hard to believe that some people here think that "X is a city in Y" without references is acceptable. I may as well make up a bunch of non-existent places. Who could tell the difference? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/ccdb/view?year=2000&type=city&state=21&items=21008902%2C21017848%2C21028900%2C21035866%2C21037918%2C21046027%2C21048000%2C21058620%2C21058836&vars[]=1265 some poulation statistics of 2000] mentions 9 cities in Kentucky. So what do we do with the remaining hundreds of cities? --Eptalon (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The university of Virrginia (linked to above, please fix the link so the braces are taken too, mentions 9 cities in Kentucky, ranging in population from about 26.000 (Paducah) to about 260.000 (Lexington-fayette). The category mentioned contains well over 200 "cities"....--Eptalon (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have already added references to a bunch of them....I plan to continue when I have time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
So in the meantime I think we should be able to resolve that a "prod" could be added (see en.wiki) which allows 7 days grace for an article before it gets summarily deleted. This would allow a week for someone to provide verifiable sources to a one-line "X, Y is is a city in Y" stub. How does that sound? Perhaps I'm now advocating the idea of bringing over the idea of en's prod? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
We have the cats to look at...but we do have things in real life to do. Why do need a time limit? They have been there for months, another 1 or 2 won't hurt. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you've entirely missed the point Griff. Articles should be VERIFIABLE. How many times do I have to say it here? This is not complicated at all, it's a simple request to say that articles (and yes, that includes stubs) should be VERIFIABLE. If you just say "X is a city in Y" and post it as a stub, where's the evidence that means anything at all? Is it true? Is it notable? Sure, you may have heard of "Xavier, Kentucky" or whatever. I certainly haven't. I could create a plethora of non-notable stubs like that in seconds. The least we can do is either support our stubs with a reliable source or suggest they should be deleted. VERIFIABILITY. This Wikipedia seems happy to say "well I've heard of it so that's fine." - come on guys, we're trying to build an encyclopedia, not a collection of useless rot that someone defends by saying "hey, no, I've heard of Xavier, scottsdale, yaddasvile, millarkey, Calif-orn-ia..., it's all good11!!1!!" Get sourcing. Even if it's basic. And it may take, like, five seconds to find a source, but let's move away from the bot-generated rubbish we have and head for real articles. With sources. That can be verified. With reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)