Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 78

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daughter vs. Mother articles

If there's one problem I've been seeing lately, it's daughter articles developing furthur and earlier than mother articles; i.e. 2004 American League Championship Series vs. American League Championship Series; et cetera. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 07:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe like Fleshy fruits vs. Fruits? ^w^ This just means we have to expand the "mother" articles more, that's all... Classical Esther 08:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Esther is right. There is plenty of info on ENWP to simplify here. This is not much of a problem really. Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 16:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something to remember is that there is no deadline on wikipedia. People will edit what they want to edit. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as a problem at all. If you see "mother" articles in need of expansion, be our guest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist question

Is there a way to set it so that pages I start (i.e. talk pages) are not automatically added to my watchlist? Kansan (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to "my settings" there's a "watchlist" tab. In that tab you can check off if you want things you create added or not, Either way (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the quick reply! Kansan (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There!

Hey everyone!

I'm MJ94. I have edited Simple before, but have not been very active. This is about to change as I begin to become an active and hopefully an editor everyone will want around! I know it's an encyclopedia and all, but I just wanted to say hello and I hope to meet you all as we work, and play together! MJ94 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well look at what the cat dragged in. :P --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, MJ94. ;) I hope you have fun here. Classical Esther 07:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I hope I'm not bothering anybody, but I have a question. When you make headings, (eg.==Question==), is it supposed to be...

== Question == (I mean with the spaces in between? Or...)

==Question==? Classical Esther 07:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both will look exactly the same when the page is read, and the difference is only noticeable when editing a page. For that reason, either way is allowed and there have been edit wars in the past with people changing from one to the other. By default, if you click "Add topic", the MediaWiki software adds a space (i.e. == Question ==), and many users think it looks better that way. Also, I think most bots will add spaces, too. So, the space is not required, but it is most often added. EhJJTALK 10:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  If you click on new section, it automatically adds a space. For articles, while spaces are preferred, all sections should use similar format and hence, if most sections don't have spaces, it will be best to remove the spaces in the other sections too, although if spaces are there in all sections, it is better. Pmlineditor  10:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your quick and helpful replies! Classical Esther 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to add the spaces per the manual of style. It helps reading the sections when looking at the source of the page. You shouldn't not use spaces, that being said I am guilty of not adding them as well sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Just a quick heads-up that Simple English Wikibooks is to be demolished closed. If you like, you can discuss the merge proposal with English Wikibooks, or you can view Wikibooks' entomology collection. — μ 09:07, Friday January 15 2010 (UTC)

Just a head's up, Simple English Wikibooks is no more. To verify, see the Special:SiteMatrix and scroll down to where it says Simple English. Regards, —§ stay (sic)! 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Someone keeps changing my wikipedia page, J.David Shapiro. I do not understand why. Under "references" I have a bunch that link up to sites showing them. I also have articles that can be sent in from magazines line The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc. So please advise why this keeps happening. Thank you

Here are some of the links that show my stuff is legit. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -(User talk: 04:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda dumb, but...

I've found this place much less turbulent than en.wp. That's a good thing, of course, but it means that I'm devoid of my usual haunts (AfC, Huggling, and NPPing). Does anyone have anything (however menial) that needs to be done? I think I can simplify, but might not do a thorough or uniform job, because I'm naturally verbose... Are there some articles to import? There must be something... I can't believe I'm actually asking for more work! That's contrary to my nature... Oh, and btw, do edit summaries and talk page comments have to be in simple English as well? Because this one just failed. SS (Kay) talk to me 09:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page and edit summaries are usually whatever English you use. As for world, I would mind having help expand a few baseball related articles, maybe even a few wrestling articles, but it's entirely up to you.--   CR90  10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very nice if you joined User:Project/Stub Eradication and expanded some stubs. More than half of our articles are stubs, so there is a lot of work to do. Of course, you can create articles on whatever topics you like (see also: Wikipedia:Requested pages and the Most Wanted list). Huggle may be too boring here, but if you watch RC, it is possible to find vandalism. You can also take a look at Special:NewPages for NPP. Pmlineditor  10:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not much to patrol there. Special:Random seems to bring up a lot of location stubs. Is there much that can be done for these? Are there specific cleanup categories? (sorry, I'm such a n00b.) SS (Kay) talk to me 10:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of stuff needs doing. Just check out the top of recent changes. And regarding location stubs, expand them if you can. Whatever you do though, avoid creating masses of one line stubs because they are something we have enough of. Majorly talk 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) It depends also on what you are interested in doing. There are articles such as Moon Hoax or eye that badly need to be simplified. There are articles such as Atheism or Nudity, which need more research for sources; I expect each of them to be like a day at a specialised (well-equipped) library - this needs specialized knolwedge though; that is you know what you are looking for, or you know how find this. And then there are the more general tasks of the order: Do the x most important cities in the US have a decent article here. (Thats where we have the 'X is a city in Y' stubs, which are the 'one-line stubs' mentioned before. All else failing, you could hit "show any page" a few times. Most of the pages shown need work...--Eptalon (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I probably won't do sourcing, because I only get access to a big library during the school hols. But yeah, I think Eye is a good place to start. And Majorly: So I can make stubs, as long as they're not one-liners? Because I made a few yesterday, just following red links. SS (Kay) talk to me 06:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Here's a good rule to keep in mind: good articles are better than stubs, but stubs are better than no articles; and expanding a bad page is better than QDing it, but QDing a bad page is better than leaving it lying around. All articles made in good faith are welcome, but try hard to keep the articles you make from being stubs - especially desperate one-liners as Majorly pointed out. At least one or two paragraphs at the least. Classical Esther 06:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to propose QD R2 be altered to only apply to nonsense redirects from Wikipedia to User namespaces. I say this cause there are some redirects (like those to Wikiprojects in userspace) that I think this Wikipedia could benefit from. Now what's considered nonsense, I think is up for discussion, which is what we should do if everyone agrees. Opinions?--   CR90  08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW after reading QD R2, that only applies to main article space to userspace though I see people using it for redirects from Wikipedia namesapce to User name space, so this needs to be discussed anyway. For the record QD R2 reads: "Redirects to the User: or User_talk: space from the main article space and vise versa. If this was because of a page move, please wait a day or two before deleting the redirect" Thanks.--   CR90  08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should stop crusading. First it was nominating articles you disagree with for deletion, now it's trying to change perfectly valid QD rationales because you don't like them. Sorry, but no. Lauryn 08:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]
BTW: People do nominate articles they disagree with; sometimes it is for good reasons, othertimes it is not. fr33kman 08:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is he crusading? Frankly, I have no issues with WikiProjects existing within WP-space? After all. On enwiki (and we claim to defer to them in many matters) WP-space contains crap such as personal essays. fr33kman 08:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, all WikiProjects are supposed to be in the userspace here. If they go to the Project space, we need consensus. Pmlineditor  07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my proposal, I want to make it where you can't qd redirects from Wikipedia namespace to User namespace.--   CR90  07:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Fr33kman ("Frankly, I have no issues with WikiProjects existing within WP-space"). Also, about your proposal - I think we should delete redirects from WP space to User space until there has been some activity in the project. I don't see any real need to have redirects to a WikiProject which has no well defined aim and no members. Also (@Fr33kman), we must remember that this is not Enwiki; so enwiki's policy's need not be followed here. Pmlineditor  07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about my proposal makes us like enWP? And makes select redirects from WP space to User space "evil"? I mean if it's not nonsense and is aimed to help direct, what's the harm?--   CR90  07:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it likely that such a redirect or even the project will get a lot of hits? Anyway, I think this is just wasting time. The redirect is useless anyway and I am sure it'll not get many hits. Pmlineditor  07:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question, what makes it evil and not worth considering?--   CR90  07:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was evil. All I think is that it is but a waste of time since I have doubts whether the redirect will get many hits. Does it take too long to type User:Belinda/WikiDragon? Anyway, how many are interested in the project? There are other projects with greater activity that do not have redirects. We don't need redirects for projects without any particular aim as such. Pmlineditor  07:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you stopped to think that maybe the redirects would help new users find projects their interested in?--   CR90  07:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not when they're still working out how to make an article of their Wikiproject to their standards. Nifky^ 07:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those project pages have <30 edits this month. How many hits do you expect from those redirects? Pmlineditor  07:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point.--   CR90  07:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What is the point then? Pmlineditor  07:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier to find stuff around the project.--   CR90  07:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page already links to all WikiProjects. Seeing that it has only 200 hits, it is evident that hardly anyone is interested in it. Anyways, the point lies in doing work rather than joining WikiProjects. It is not as if someone can't write a GA if they aren't in the related WikiProject. On the other hand, it is not that all editors who have joined the GA project have GAs. If anyone wants to join WikiProjects, they can look at WP:WikiProject for information. Redirects aren't necessary. This discussion isn't necessary as well; we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to discuss endlessly about few redirects which probably will be unused. Pmlineditor  07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this conversation has started all because of my horrible article. I will really never make such bad project things again, I assure you, so I can delete them right now if you want! Please just don't be angry at me, Pmlineditor and Lauryn and Fr33kman all those wonderful people out there. Everybody is getting angry all because of me. Those pages are all troublesome and unnecessary, anyway. I just saw WikiFairy and thought maybe I could make more linked to it.... :) Maybe I am being unreasonable.. still, I want to be helpful, not a pest! Belle (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just about you're article, Belle, I've been thinking this for a while, you article just put me over the top.--   CR90  07:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.... :( Alright, but still I think my articles are terrible. Belle (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello community!

I, as one of the current oversights, want to inform you that we are still active. If you find something that needs to be removed, so please talk to us on IRC (not always is someone around and available, but fairly frequently) or mail us to our mailing list. We are often around even if none of us actively edits the wiki when you need something done. Most of our oversights read their mails very often and it normally shouldn't take too long until a response is sent. Please don't have worries if you report a false positive to us. We surely don't bit you if it's nothing for oversight. It is much better to have from time to time a false positive than having things on the wiki which shouldn't be there. Please talk to us on IRC if you find something that needs to be removed or write us a mail. This would be a good step to keep the wiki clean. Barras talk 16:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Barras! Classical Esther ~ 11:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another annoying question ^-^

Does anybody know why "show any page" was changed to "random article"? I think the former was simpler...? Classical Esther ~ 11:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have been. I will change it back. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and good job, DJSasso! Classical EstherLibrary 07:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might not be related (I'm kind of new here so I don't know what things were like before) but does anyone know why, when I'm not logged in, I see "Show any page", but when I am logged in, I see "Random article"? It's the same with the rest of the items in the navbox, I see links written in simple english when I'm not logged in and non-simple links when I am logged in. Cheers, JYolkowski (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because you have set in your preferences "en - English" and not "simple - Simple English", in the "Languages" part. --Diego (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that's not it, my preferences were set to simple. Cheers, JYolkowski (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look, its possible it was changed in more than one place and I missed reverting the other. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope looks like it hadn't been changed elsewhere...maybe its your cache. Doesn't change for me logged in or out. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try using Ctrl+Shift+R, it works very well with both images and text cache. --Diego (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have fixed the problem, thanks! JYolkowski (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :-) --Diego (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended this for three days, as consensus is clearly present but we don't yet have the required 25 votes. Please participate if you get a chance. Cheers. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/The Rambling Man. Come on folks! –Juliancolton | Talk 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you only needed the 25 supports for Checkuser.--   CR90  22:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For oversight as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25 votes! --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. It's proper form I think to let it stay open the remainder of the three-day extension, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding an admin?

Hi, I tried asking a question to an admin but was reverted twice. Is there someone else I can ask?

Responded, apologies for the abuse. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and sorry for that.

New page protection

Hi. Looking at some IP creations today and yesterday, I was wondering... why don't we protect the new page creation from IP's, like the English Wikipedia?. For sure, it will decrease the new articles number, but it makes us lose golden time adding the {{qd}} template to the pages and warning them. It can be solved encouraging IP's to expand existent articles (not to vandalize :P). What do you think? --Diego (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that goes against "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". While there are some bad pages that are created by IPs, there are also many good ones and I think we would discourage people from helping here if we limited page creation to registered accounts only. Lauryn 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we should encourage them to create accounts to create pages, just to make them more easy to find. Well, there are dynamic IP addresses, that can't be blocked at once, so if we encourage them to create an account and then to create a page, and if they are vandalism-only accounts, they can be autoblocked and they will can't edit from anywhere they are. At least that I meant, or whatever else. :-P --Diego (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We, have discussed this many times before. Personally, I am somewhat in favour, but to help you out I'll outline the basic arguments used. For it have been, that it would possibly prevent vandal and attack pages from vandals, especially proxy vandals, and that "anyone" could still edit but that they'd just need an account first. Against it have been that vandals would simply begin creating lots of vandal accounts, making even more work, and that it may discourage good creations by fly-by IP editors. With these arguments, it is no wonder that no consensus either for or against has ever emerged. I doubt we'll reach a consensus for or against anytime soon :) fr33kman 00:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something else, going along with fr33kman's comment, is that more than likely the accounts they use to vandalise with will have names that need oversight. Lauryn 00:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read fr33kman's comment, I think it's not the time or situation to propose this, so please, nevermind :-) --Diego (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Some of the language used here is inappropriately simplistic. Every page that we create carries an invitation: Change this page. "Change this page" does not mean the same thing as "Edit this page" which is what we are actually encouraging people to do. "Change this page" simply invites changes. If what we want is change, then a vandalistic change is as good as any other. But that is not what we want at all. I suggest that the short, correct four-letter word "edit" be reinstated on the tab of every page.

One of the reasons for this is that although we are writing here for those with limited English, we are not writing for the fools who enjoy vandalising pages. Although we are writing for children, we are not writing to encourage children to act in a silly way. Every field of operation, every field of discipline has its own vocabulary. When we write about the science we expect the reader to know what a "research" is. When we write about a rock band, we expect the reader to know what a "recording" is. When we write about a famous building we expect the reader to know what the term "architecture" means. The word "Edit" is basic vocabulary in the art of writing.

To put it even more simply, if the person who wants to make a "change" (in other words, "edit") does not have the word "edit" as part of their vocabulary, then their vocabulary is insufficient to edit these pages in an accurate way. Editors who edit so that non-native speakers, children and the intellectually challenged can understand, needs a high level of English, not a low one. A low level of English comprehension leads to contorted expression, ungrammatical sentences, and confusion rather than clarity. (Editors with limited English but good subject knowledge can often make worthwhile contributions, but these often need to reworked by people with a higher level of English, and may be best made as suggestions on the talk pages.)

For these reasons I want the tab "Change this page" replaced with the accurate and more meaningful "Edit this page". Amandajm (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally for this, but I'm not opposed either. The editor makes a nice point.--   CR90  07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amandajm is definitely right in this. I think we should alson change other places, where edit was replaced by changed in similar ways. For those concerned, we might explain editing, or link it to SEWikt when we explain. When we write for an audience with limited skills of English we should make sure that the words used have few meanings. Editing is pretty concise. Change? - The weather changes, when you get up in the moring, you change your clothes. When you get a wrong item delivered by mail order, you have it changed (or exchange) it. When you travel abroad you may need to change your money, for a different currency...--Eptalon (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting thought, and I think Amandajm is right. Would we change "change" to make it "edit", or would we edit "change" to make it "edit"? :) Peterdownunder (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would note, that in all your examples change means the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If we can get a consensus to... err, adjust this, I can do it fairly quickly. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see no difference, because an edit can mean vandalize just as much as change can. That being said. I don't really care either way. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Change/edit - no difference. For a simple English user, if they want to make the way a page appears different, then they'll "change" it, not "edit" it. Eptalon provides several good examples of where change does indeed mean the same thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have enough agreement here for this to happen! Can you do it please, JulianColton? Amandajm (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't care about the outcome much, this should not have been implimented so fast. Such major changes should normally be left open for 7 days. This was done in far too much of a shotgun mannor. 2 days is completely unacceptable for such a major change to a major link on the interface. I would like to see which ever admin made the changes revert themselves since there was no clear consensus on this yet and was definitely not open long enough. This was just a rediculous move. -DJSasso (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm has made his point very logically and nicely, but I think I tend to agree with The Rambling Man and DJSasso. For people who really want to vandalize, the word "change" and "edit" can hardly make a difference. This is the Simple English Wikipedia, after all...and yes, I think we should let the idea be a little more thoroughly discussed before we decide anything. Classical Esther 05:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The implementation should have been done later - full disclosure: I had planned do do it after a week. However, now that it has been done, there is really no need to revert and do it again, which seems a waste of time, IMHO. Pmlineditor  09:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree with you there. We have better things to do than argue about the difference between "edit" and "change" . Classical Esther 10:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit hesitant change to how things are here, there should be more time spent notifying users of the discussion and change of the interface as said above. Nifky^ 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty big deal, things lately seem to have been getting done in a rapid fashion like people either just can't wait or don't want people to have a chance to comment against their postition on the matter. Now that I have looked at who made the changes it doesn't surprise me. She has been moving way to fast in many of her admin decisions and has made numerous mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the conversation on this has ended. While I agree with many of the arguments made above, replacing "change" with "edit" goes against on the the core principles of this wiki, which is to use words from Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist whenever possible. You don't need a solid level of English to make a small change on this wiki (fix a typo or punctuation error, or remove vandalism). I've done that on many foreign language wikis without knowing even a word of that language! The basic interface of this wiki should be in Simple English, even if not all article are. Personally, I think this change should have been done after a lot more discussion and probably not at all. Can we continue to discuss this and decide one way or the other? Please wait for an admin/crat to "close" the discussion before making changes, one way or the other. Right now, there are still a lot of "changes" lying around (such as in the toolbar on the left, where it says "New changes", and Wikipedia:Change summary). Thanks! EhJJTALK 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah all of the welcome templates say change still.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about it more, it should definitely be change for the reason EhJJ mentions. We should be using a word from the Basic English list. -DJSasso (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they decide to put it back to "change", I applaud the decision. If they decide there are more important things to do than worry about that, then, well...maybe they're right. But you hit it very firmly on the nail, EhJJ, much more logically than I could have done. You made some very good points above. Classical Esther 05:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Looks like the discussion has ended. Could users please say whether they prefer "change" or "edit", based on the conversation above and their personal opinion? You are encouraged to add your reasoning. An admin will close this in a few days, based on level of feedback. EhJJTALK 05:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change - Per my paragraph above. EhJJTALK 05:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change or Edit - It doesn't matter to me, IMO, they both mean the same thing in this case and are both simple.--   CR90  06:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change - They mean about the same thing. Its close enough for me. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change - it's in the basic 1000 (or some other number). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change It's still on all the welcome template, along with many others. I don't see reason to change to a more complex term.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change IMO, it's simpler than edit. Megan|talkchanges 23:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change per EhJJ. We are supposed to try and use BE words. -DJSasso (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Because it's simpler! Also, it makes Simple English Wikipedia unique. ;) Classical Esther ~ 05:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change - Better as it was before. Nifky^ 07:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit - I'm sorry, but I will have to disagree with above. Our encyclopedic content should be in simple English, but we shouldn't choose "change" over "edit" just for the sake of being a simple English wikipedia. If this was the case, then we would be re-writing all of our policies in simple English and have discussion threads on simple talk and on admins' noticeboard in simple English. That is too ridicious, imo. We are the simple English wikipedia, but we shouldn't overdo it. +$0.02 —§ stay (sic)! 11:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We actually are supposed to do all those things. Anything you say on simple talk is supposed to use simple english. Our policies are also supposed to follow the same standards as our articles. Everything written on this wiki is supposed to be in simple english. Just like everything on French wikipedia is in French. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many, if not most, of the discussions on simple talk and AN haven't been in simple english. Per this wiki's goal, simple english would be targeted to ESL learners or to a younger audience. As far I know, all users here already know English, and the majoirty are at least adolescents if not adults, which is the reason why discussions are usually not held in simple english. The French wikipedia has everything done in French because most of the users have a decent knowledge of the language. If we are to have our discussions in simple english, then me think words on simple talk too hard. —§ stay (sic)! 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because we are english speakers doesn't mean we don't want to encourage non-english speakers to also be involved in the discussions. Yes alot of people dont use simple english in discussions, even I have problems doing that. But as our stated goal is to be a wikipedia in simple english we are supposed to strive to have everything here in simple english. We are here for the readers, not the editors. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The readers would be here for the encyclopedia, not to check discussion threads on simple talk or AN. Anyways, I know my opinion will be overlooked since the consensus is now leaning in favor for reinstating "change this page". (Me: 0 | Everyone else: 8327+) —§ stay (sic)! 13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have reviewed the above discussion, and straw poll. We will be altering the text from edit to change per the agreement of the majority above. p.s. The discussion has been ongoing for 7+ days and it appears it will not change drastically. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NVS returned to simple, after a very valid absence. Upon request, the admin flag has been readded. fr33kman 06:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have him back. :) Lauryn (utc) 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me for this unnecessary curiosity, but when I proposed the article about Proteas for the DYK, and when it really became one, how come nobody gave me the sweet orange DYK box? :( Isn't somebody supposed to deliver it? Belinda 07:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not really part of the official DYK process. Some updaters have been giving them, others have not. Either way (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the user who updated DYK last time, I did not give credit to anyone since there is no official consensus about this. While I support giving credit, many others do not and in such a situation, I think it is unwise to go against consensus. If there is consensus to give credit, I certainly will do so. Pmlineditor  10:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thankyou, you're so kind! :) But could you please give it to me? I don't know how to give it to myself... ^u^ Please? Thank you! Belinda 10:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I would love to do so, I believe it would be more prudent to wait first to see what the community decides about it. Classical Esther 11:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News

What the heck has happened to Simple News?--   CR90  01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueGoblin7 took a break. He was a main contributor, without him it's kinda at a standstill.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought BG7 retired?--   CR90  01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get SN ready if I have time... Pmlineditor  07:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BG7 isn't retired Christian Rocker, he's doing something in school that takes up a lot of his time. He said he would be back in awhile. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 18:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is retired. Pmlineditor  15:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update, Simple News delivered. Pmlineditor  10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Pmlineditor. Finally! ^^ Classical Esther 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were issues...

With the article Moon hoax (theory) which was titled Moon landing conspiracy theories. There were concerns that the first title was POV. I agree. However, in my attempt to find an NPOV title, I have created a new title class (theory) and this was inadvertent. I think the new title may still be POV. Help? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an easy topic to try to find a NPOV title for one way or the other. I definitely think more community input is better so we can find a consensus. Kansan (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have proposed guidance at Wikipedia:Importers. Please see the associated talk page. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Given that we have had quite a few requests lately for Importer flags, and given that we have indicated in the past that it'd be good to keep things local and not have to bother the, already overworked, stewards with fairly trivial requests, I'd like to ask the community to let local beaureaucrats handle the granting and removal of the "importer" flag. It's not really a big deal, and we would still run requests at WP:RFP so the whole community can take part and comment. fr33kman 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the administrators can not handle this flagging (in addition to flood, IPEXEMPT, and rollbacker)? NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. fr33kman 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aye, not a big deal and will allow for temp award etc (will replace sig with own when I get home) James (T C) 15:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have no problem with this, however is this something that can be given to local wikis to do? I always thought it was in the same group as CU/OS which had to be done by stewards due to the fact it can work x-wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so.. I think it has just been something no one asked to do. But I will check and report back. James (T C) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an update, I obviously haven't talked to everyone but I spoke with Kylu, Pathoschild and Darkoneko and all stated that they did not think it would be a concern. Cary also said that the foundation has no interest either way. James (T C) 05:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see why not! Yottie =talk= 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. That's a good idea. Classical Esther 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lauryn (utc) 04:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nifky^ 05:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Said this in the last RfI. Pmlineditor  05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support--   CR90  05:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, you broke the series of supports without templates. :P Pmlineditor  05:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. § stay (sic)! 09:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sure. I would also have no problem with NVS' idea.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sounds good. I'd note, however, that letting admins give out this right isn't a good idea. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Definitely, this sort of task is why crats exist. EhJJTALK 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Withdrawn opposition Would like to see administrators with this ability... er, administrators can import, so we ought to be able to authorize the flag as well. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Can we close the poll for now in favor of a brief threaded discussion, I'd like to discuss this in a bit more detail. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh definately wouldn't be in favour of that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that, I take your meaning to be the administrators granting the flag. Could you clarify to why this would be a bad idea. Also, please see my meaning about getting it for a task, and returning it when complete. Warm regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want the importer flag given out willy I would rather have just crats have the ability...and since admins can become crats fairly easily under the new rules...I don't think there is a need for admins to be able to give it out. There is no rush to importing, as I told Razorflame in his request for the flag back. There is no reason a person can't say I want this article(s) imported could you do it for me? To an admin. It's not a tool like block or protect that requires immediate action. So the number of people that can do it is not really relevant. And we have more than enough crats that can take care of what few requests there might be. I also worry that this is a rush to another "power" since we have almost run out of users to make admin. -DJSasso (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've become uncomfortable with the recent slew of importer requests. As an aside, I want to explore a "You have to have a task, and the flag will be removed when your task is complete." type deal. Incidentally, I have recently made a mistake with the import tool that required a few hours and my asking another two folks for help in correcting it. This tool is not the most benign tool. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if we go that route (once you are finished with your task, the right is removed) then we probably should not even grant the right at all and have one of the 43 sysops do it. Just a thought. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 05:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go that far :) If an editor comes to me with a clear task, a clear plan, and the technical know-how, I have no issues adding and removing that flag. I may not be interested in doing that task, but I may be persuaded to pawn the flag off to a hard working volunteer who might enjoy doing that task, whatever it may be. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict ::This is a slightly different but to be honest I think it can be very good to allow people (who we trust enough) to do the work themselves. It gives them some responsibility and shows our trust. Sometimes this will end up in more work as we have to fix mistakes, yes, but I think that it can be worth it in the long run. James (T C) 05:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not see "import" as being a big deal. Most of the time, "imports" are done when there are "large" pages, which are first imported, and then simplified to suit the needs of this crowd. The problem I have with it, is that the simplification is rarely done; as such the "use" of an import tool should be fairly limited. This of course presumes that the tool works flawlessly, which it doesn't. --Eptalon (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this discussion be branched out into another one discussing the requirements for an editor to be granted the flag? An importer does have a right that administrators or even bureaucrats do not have, the importupload right. This right will allow the user in question to upload an XML file for importing. It can be abused very easily and has the potential to cause chaos in the edit history of an article. There is a need to establish a clear minimum editing requirement so that the community is able to gauge how much they trust the editor (and also if he is able to use the tool properly), and not allow some random person who came from somewhere. Chenzw  Talk  14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
psst... a little above :) NonvocalScream (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) I thought the transwiki group was being given and not import to those who passed RfIs. Apparently, I am mistaken. I think this should be changed since I (and probably most others) were voting for granting the user rights to import from sister projects and not local files. I don't think anyone, not even an admin needs this flag. Cheers, Pmlineditor  14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Pmlineditor, as this was my impression as well. Lauryn (utc) 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw that isn't actually correct. WMF has removed the ability to import from XML files from all WMF wikis. We wont be giving that ability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, actually, Chenzw speaks the truth. I did some research because I was getting conflicting information. The WMF does not prohibit the importupload attribute. It is available for those to use via the import permission. However, the other permission that our importers should be getting is the transwiki importer permission per my below. So, it is technically possible to grant the import permission, however, it should not be done. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since from all the "importer" discussions, I can tell that we are not granting the importupload right, instead, for all purposes our importers are "transwiki" importers from other WMF projects, I have engaged the stewards, to please ensure that the correct rights are applied. The correct rights have been applied and we should specify somewhere which right we are granting, the stewards are good, but no mind readers there. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

needs help. Please help. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently a dictionary definition, so I personally would have deleted and transwiki'd by now. However, if someone wants to expand it they can. -DJSasso (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to edit Wiktionary yet, that is, I'm not up on all the rules there. Is that embarrassing? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know how either, I actually assume this word is probably already there. -DJSasso (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tis empty. Lauryn (utc) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) actually it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added to it some; tho' I am not a very good editor yet, I hope it helps. God bless everyone, Classical Esther 08:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had two articles (WrestleMania XXVII and Joe Maddon) moved to my user space (with the WrestleMania one being deleted and restored first) because they have been threatened to be deleted by NonvocalScream (talk · contribs) and Djsasso (talk · contribs) per QD A3. I contest this, when they were imported, my first priority was to simplify them to the point where they did not meet this criteria, they do not met the QD criteria anymore, they do need more simplification, which I will get to in a bit but I have other things to worry about right now on-wiki. From what I can tell to delete these per QD A3 would be an error on the deleting admin part. I would like the community to discuss this. At the most, a polite note to simplify soon should have been left on my talk page and the article tagged with {{simplify}}.--   CR90  05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support both NonvocalScream and DJSasso; both were very valid A3s. You were perhaps cut a little slack due to being a long-standing editor, as pages such as these I usually delete as soon as I see them. Lauryn (utc) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lauryn, QD A3 reads little or no simplification. They had a good bit of simplification done to them. There is more to simplify but I simplified a lot of the text on the two articles. They do not meet QD A3.--   CR90  05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what A3 says, and no they did not have a "good bit" of simplification done to them. You even left "External links" at the very bottom. Lauryn (utc) 05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. They were changed a lot and simplified a good bit from their en counterparts like I have said.--   CR90  05:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is is important to change the sentence structure, prose, usage, and grammar amongst other things. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing one paragraph and changing a few words is not simplifcation. It worries me that someone with access to Special:Import thinks this way and I would advise you to both adequately simplify these two articles before moving them out of your userspace or using import again. Lauryn (utc) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I'm only human and don't have all the skills, maybe simplifying perfectly is one of them I don't have, so instead of deleting and taking the easy way out, why not do what you came here to do in the first place and help me get it right? I understand I may sound harsh but the truth sometimes is.--   CR90  06:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should not half-arse a task. If you don't have the "time" or whatever to adequately complete what you set out to do, do not begin in the first place. While, yes, we are here to build an encyclopedia, we are not here to clean up after people who do not have the "time" to do something. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 06:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mention time, I mentioned skills, which is way different.--   CR90  06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"which I will get to in a bit but I have other things to worry about right now on-wiki" is what I'm referencing. Thanks, Lauryn (utc) 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You scream and DJ obviously do not like how I simplify so why not help me out to teach me? I've told y'all before I'm not an article builder. I try but I always fail.--   CR90  06:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simplification, involves not only changing words, but also changing sentence structure, rewriting entire paragraphs and the like. The articles were not deleted immediately because I, and then NVS gave you some slack because you were a long time editor. These article by any other user would have been deleted instantly. Maybe you don't have the skills as you mention, if that is the case then you should be starting articles from scratch and not importing them to simplify. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight, Dj, you would rather me create short little stubs, then teach me how to simplify correctly so I can import articles and the article actually inform the reader? Forgive me but I believe that's called laziness. (Though I'm one to talk I'm one of the laziest people I know)--   CR90  13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather you simplify period. I don't actually care how it is achieved. It was you who said you probably don't have the skills. Creating an article from scratch does not mean it has to be a stub, all it means is you aren't copying what someone else wrote and then simplifying. It means you are creating a brand new simple article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If the majority of the page is complex, with little change to simplification, it does meet the quick deletion criteria I'm afraid. The article must show sign of *much* conversion in order to leave the criterion, however, these did not. I caught one, that I believe was to meet the criterion that meet criteria in a borderline fashion at Joe Maddon, and the other one WrestleMania XXVII unfortunately was a clear case. I choose not to delete Joe Maddon because CR90 is a long term volunteer here. I have asked CR90 to please convert the two, and offered to move to userspace or email the deleted version of the one that I did delete. I have also asked CR90 to no longer use the import tool until these tasks are finished. That would especially be most important if he has other things to do instead of converting the imported article. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with importing pages. A lot of them don't get much simplification (or none at all). I think a lot of the pages that were imported (including templates, etc...) haven't been sufficiently simplified, and could in theory be deleted per QD A3. Yottie =talk= 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! [temporarily]

After a not-so-short hiatus, I have returned at the request of my good friends on here. Some people have asked me to redesign the Main Page. An idea I have can be seen here. I'd like for us to collab [respectfully] and take a vote on it shortly. If you guys would like some color, I could make that happen. By the way, what happened to my "icon" code at MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Common.js? The icons look like they've taken a 180, but I don't mind if that's what you all would rather prefer. obentomusubi 04:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good :) --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, I like color personally, I don't live in a black and white world.--   CR90  04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if the design is visually appealing, it will encourage viewers to scroll down. As it is, it's easy to just glance at the front page and gloss over it as it is. The front page looks okay right now but could be a lot better. Kansan (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, what color scheme would you guys like it to have? obentomusubi 05:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based around this: ██ (#0000cd) ;) j/k seriously, I'd like to see this: ██ (#ccccff) or this: ██ (#7DC1E6)--   CR90  05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okey dokey. :) obentomusubi 05:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some color. Suggestions? obentomusubi 06:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ❤ the round corners... It looks very nice, sophisticated and easy to follow. (Something I especially appreciate now, being in the process of learning to design webpages). SS (Kay) talk to me 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! obentomusubi 07:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, question: Will they show up in IE or just Firefox? (And now that I think about it: I don't like the font of that "Welcome to Wikipedia". It looks stilted, at least on my browser.) SS (Kay) talk to me 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only for Firefox. Sadly, Internet Explorer isn't compatible with HTML rounded corners. obentomusubi 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the colour scheme a bit too blue. I'd prefer a paler shade of blue (almost white) or some other pale colour. Nifky^ 07:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made everything lighter and more of an off-white blue. I also changed the font from a serif font to the regular non-serif font. obentomusubi 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also changed the color of the "Selected article" box to an orange-y scheme and the "Did you know" box to a greenish scheme. Suggestions? obentomusubi 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, super job, obentomusbi! It looks beautiful. Maybe one of the boxes can have a lavender-y scheme? Classical Esther 08:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title could possibly be bolded to be uniform with the rest of the headers, but I'm not sure. The colours are rather refreshing, though. :) SS(Kay) 08:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, looks good with purple, tho' maybe it could be a little lighter in colour...? Wow, you're really good at these stuff! It looks great. Classical Esther 08:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the orange-y scheme? Classical Esther 10:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I changed the box so it looks more orange-y. obentomusubi 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<--)Yes! The Obento Musubi has returned! I, for one, would like to see a bit of a face lift for the ol' wiki! :) Let's get some ideas going and get discussion for them working too. (/me is having a good day now!) fr33kman 10:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you Fr33kman! obentomusubi 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we are talking about User:The Obento Musubi/Main Page if so then I object very strongly, that colouring scheme is horrendus. There is a reason the main page is fairly colour neutral. Its because colour is a very subjective thing, what one person likes another hates. I find this example very distracting and it makes the page really hard to read. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive criticism! I don't know if you know this, but I made the color very neutral at first, but people objected and recommended that I make it more colorful. obentomusubi 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel sorry for Obento. Having to change everything to one user's (multiple users, actually) whim. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say well done! Looks great. Yottie =talk= 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, it's an excellent job! I think colour is engaging and makes people want to read the page. I think it's also much easier to read. That's a good thing for dyslexics. fr33kman 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! :) obentomusubi 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being slightly away I've been busy lately. A couple things: The Icon stuff was changed to topicon in css and js by myself a while ago when I was getting the protection topicons to work because I had multiple people harassing me to get them working :) , after I did so I changed the template:icon so that they too would work (albet slightly differently). You can see my code in the monobook.css (I added stuff to monobook.js but that is just to adjust things when we have a central notice). I'm not totally sure why I decided to add it to monobook instead of just common... but I know I tested it on other skins and it worked as well ;).

My icons are based on the Enwiki versions, If we want to change them that is fine but I would honestly appreciate if we talk about it. I worked almost 20 hours trying to get the protection topicons working and it ended up being much easier to use the topicon version then the one we used to have and it is kind of frustrating to see some of my work just rolled back without comment or from what I see discussion. I personally like the little stars we have up there now but I am obviously biased and will fold to what others want. I don't really care if we change the main page, though I agree with DJ I personally prefer more neutral colors but I am possibly just a boring guy like that with my preference for earth tones etc ;). On a slightly different note I don't totally like the bottom stripe on template:vgood now but if people want it that's fine :). I wonder if the issues Twinkle was having earlier with the code you tried to put in was the new code conflicting with mine but I haven't figured out exactly where that could be yet. James (T C) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the good icon doesn't look nice to me. It is the same icon used in {{confirmed}} (which is for CU) which is pretty confusing. I quite liked the old icon. The VGA icon isn't bad though. Pmlineditor  06:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new one looks better. Good work. Pmlineditor  08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great, but the colours, tho' refreshing, makes the "Welcome to Wikipedia" box look rather faded. Any ideas? Classical Esther 08:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, it looks beautiful now. I liked the former orange-y scheme better, though...sorry, it must be so tedious with all my bossiness ;) ...that is, the orange is very pretty, but I think it should be lighter. It makes it a bit glaring. Beautiful work till now! Classical Esther 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Main box does look a tad faded, but I think that's okay. I like this better than the enwp main page now :)... I think we all agree the layout is excellent, we're just disputing the exact colours now... which is a great place to be. SS(Kay) 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree, SSKay! Obento Musubi has done a great job. The Main box seems to look a bit better now. Do you think one of the boxes could have a yellowy scheme? Then it could be a bit more balanced: general blue main, opposing red (that is, orange-y) and green, and purple and yellow. Any opinions? Classical Esther 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, that's actually a really good idea (despite my dislike of yellow). It actually looks good that way, but now I'm getting a little bit worried about the professionalism of all the pretty colours :(... I like them, I don't know if others will. (And Esther: you can call me either SS or Kay :) SS(Kay) 21:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kay! :) Hmm, maybe you're right. I wish we had some more the bye, I wonder if the "Introduction to Wikipedia" box can be a yellow, not the sister projects box? But then again, I don't know much about art and these stuff, so the idea might be horrid, but just a thought... Classical Esther 03:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PGA and PVGA criteria

Hey everyone,

I noticed on the WP:PGA talk page that there was consensus to stop voting on proposed GAs and VGAs. The criteria, however, still mention voting. Should this be corrected? Megan|talkchanges 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_good_articles#Let.27s_stop_voting, I don't necessarily think that that is sufficient consensus to change it. Two people mentioned it and PBP dissented, and the discussion has sense stalled. It's possible that this isn't what you were referencing, so if not, please correct me. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 17:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I was referring to. It just seems that no one votes on the PGA and PVGA pages, so I thought it was decided not to vote. If there has not been enough consensus, why then has everyone stopped voting? Megan|talkchanges 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That I could not tell you as I do not really pay attention to V(GA)s. Sometimes policies are changed by evolution of action instead of discussion. Perhaps that is the case here. Lauryn (utc) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lauryn, for your responses. If the criteria have been changed by action instead of discussion, should the criteria then be updated? Megan|talkchanges 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a discussion in ST following which it was decided to stop voting and promote (V)GAs by consensus. I think the criteria should be updated accordingly. Pmlineditor  10:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]