Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 81

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am actually at a loss for words. SS(Kay) 08:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I suggest, put a full stop in the first sentence, after 'Jesus', cut the rest, and put the short sentence into Wikt. Macdonald-ross (talk)

Community input needed

I like to merge Asperger's syndrome to Autism. It's exactly like autism but it's just milder. I don't think it should have its own article as it might confuse the readers. If we can just gain a consensus here, then I can do the merger quickly. And also, high-functioning autism currently does not have its own article. And that is pretty similar to Asperger's. Flayof (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them separate (because they are different) and create the missing one. Merging would probably only cause more confusion, especially when there is a substantial amount of information on each waiting to be written! So, oppose merge. Goblin 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]
I also oppose a merger. fr33kman 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose this as well. They are different. Either way (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite different. Oppose as someone with an aspie sibling. SS(Kay) 03:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose a merger. While both are on the autism spectrum, they are not the same thing, and have important differences. Belong to a common category is not cause for a merger. Kansan (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No merger; reasons same as above answers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat neutral about whether to merge or not. They are currently considered different conditions and could very well be separate articles. The new DSM V (not yet published) will almost certainly remove Asperger's Syndrome as its own disease, likely merging it with Autistic Disorder.[1] However, until that happens, and given the strong community feelings above, it makes sense to keep the two articles separate. EhJJTALK 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if it gets published, then can we merge Asperger's to Autism? How do I email them to tell them to get it published faster? I'm sick and tired of people saying that it is a fake disorder. Encyclopedia Dramatica already criticized it saying that it's a "made-up disease". Flayof (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a reliable resource on any subject, let alone medical subjects. DSM is centric to the USA and does not represent a global perspective (ICD is better, but still not without issues). Asperger Syndrome (note: It's not Asperger's, but Asperger) is certainly real and fairly well understood. The autistic spectrum of disorders is very notable, and most of them deserve their own articles. fr33kman 07:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not merging - you're contradicting yourself; you say 'it's exactly like autism but milder' then also say that a more serious form of autism is similar to Asperger's. They're both different; they have different characteristics, some of which may be common in both but both austism and asperger's are not the same. Nifky^ 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging doesn't seem appropriate here. In addition to the reasons outlined above, the featured article should have a simple counterpart. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a doctor, but reading the two articles at other wikipedias:
  • While in many cases people with Asperger are also autistic, this is not necessarily the case.
  • There are forms of autism that are not classified as Asperger's syndrome
I think that if we take both conditions above into account, merging both articles does no longer make sense. --Eptalon (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of admin rights

Hey, everyone! For those of you who don't know me, I uncontroversially retired my admin status in June 2009. Although I don't plan to be as active as I once was, I am requesting the tools back again. I'm not doing RfA because I don't remember such occurrences being controversial in the past. Thoughts? American Eagle (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Welcome back! :) fr33kman 06:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy April Fool's!

Just wanted to wish everyone a Happy April Fool's Day, which has this year been dedicated in memory of Pmlineditor. Sign below to show your support for him! Bluegoblin7 

+1 --Mercy  10:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+2 Just curious: why is it dedicated to Pmlineditor? (Though I'm sure he deserves it :p) - Classical Esther  12:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+3 --Probably because he's such a great user and a kind adopter. Belinda 
yay Juliancolton  13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PMfail =P Yottie  16:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+6 Who counting? ;) American Eagle  16:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+7 Barras  17:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+∞ --Diego Grez  17:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to disappoint, PBP, but I beat you to stealing Goblin's sig. ;) Lauryn  18:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+12 --I-on  18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+13 Kansan  16:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+14 Meganmccarty  19:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+15 Griffinofwales  21:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1Happy April 2nd, Good Friday ~ R.T.G 07:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+16 Nifky^ 07:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry for polluting this place with my nonsensical useless questions, but I know so much smart people around here are sure to be able to solve them. Could you please explain to me more about the StubCup that Yotcmdr put up in the Simple News Article? I expanded one stub-article, but nobody puts it up on the expanded place. ?? Am I supposed to put it up by myself? Belinda 03:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, but how do I put it up? (Ugh, I'm sorry for having such an immature brain.) Belinda 03:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't started yet. See the page. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the link? Purplebackpack89 04:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Griffinofwales[reply]
Wikipedia:Article Cup/Stub 10.  — laurynashby 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get that what do you mean? The stubcup hasn't started yet? When will it start? Belinda 08:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been decided when it will start, but it will... soon. Have a little patience till then. ;) Pmlineditor  09:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so impatient! *slaps face* Sorry, thankyou for the advice. Please let me know when it does! Belinda 09:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added template typo but made mistake with /doc I can't seem to fix

Hi, I copied the typo template from the which is used to hide deliberate spelling mistakes from autospellcheckers such as on a list of common spelling mistakes. Problem is, when I moved the /doc page I moved it to /Doc (capital D) and the template doesn't see it but when I tried to move it from /Doc to /doc it said it was the same destination so rather than moving it around and creating needless redirects, could an admin delete the page Template:Typo/Doc and create the page Template:Typo/doc with the same text? Thanks ~ R.T.G 07:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I had no problems moving it. Strange that.  — laurynashby 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know maybe I pressed something x) ~ R.T.G 08:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows, some things just require a woman's touch. ;)  — laurynashby 08:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too fast: a provocation

I notice that the proposal for demotion of Violin took only 11 days, and the consensus to keep does not seem to me to be as decisive as claimed. This seems to me to be too fast for comfort. I put it to you that there is no way Violin would get VGA if it was a new article today, because it is not a sufficiently broad coverage of the topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 days actually, one more than the required two weeks. Opening 18th March, closed 2nd April. In terms of consensus, 4 promote, 2 firm demote, 1 leaning demote but with all concerns fixed and 1 no comment. If you read my comments it's certainly not perfect by any means but it's a damn sight better than it was and demoting would be pointless. I notice that you never commented, despite it being up for two weeks and there being notices in various places, so you can't say that you weren't informed. Goblin 10:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
Just as a side note, Too Fast: a What? I thought I was on the simple English Wikipedia... </end Gordon's mindless ranting>--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point. :) Classical Esther 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wish.. / Maths

I wish Wikipedia had all the mathematical articles written in Simple English.

I wish these Simple-English articles were sufficiently long, so that I wouldn't have to read too many other interlinked pages while reading them.

is there a simple talk for people who are learning other languages? like portuguese? Thanks

No, they are not allowed anymore. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The questioner raises an important point. Some thoughts:
  1. Many topics are not yet on Simple, or they may be too short and don't give enough help for readers to properly understand.
  2. A contributor needs to know enough maths to know whether the simplified version is still technically accurate. Do we have any such person? Maybe not.
  3. On the other hand, the explanations should be clear to a bright 12-year old, except basic arithmetic, which should be pitched for 8-year olds. That suggests we need someone with maths teaching experience.
  4. There is a lack of basic definitions of key terms or, if present, they may not be adequately done. We might do a check-list of basic terms to do. You can't do or teach maths without a grasp of basic concepts. If we had a maths expert, we could create a maths project on his/her page. That would be a start.
  5. enWP maths pages are, to say the least, variable, and hence may not help us much. Check out en:Simultaneous equation for an example of a v. poor article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses:
  1. We currently do not have enough editors that edit Maths-related pages. Depending on the subject, understanding the math requires an university background; people without such a background are unlikely to come across certain topics. While Möbius strip or Klein bottle make for fun do you know taglines, and it is probably not hard to find such; I would however not be able to tell you whether what's written there is correct, and accurate (It's simply not my field of study). Now imagine what happens to less "popular" areas of mathematics...
  2. Let's for one instant suppose we did not have a problem finding editors with the required background, the next question is: Can what we call "Simple English" be used in such a way to be both concise in the mathematical sense, and "easy to understand" as a "language? - If this is not the case, can "Simple English" be changed to meet this requirement, and what would be involved in changing it?
  3. Suppose we somehow can express a complex mathematical concept in Simple English, what benefit would a Simple English "article" have over a "regular English" one; that is: how do we "sell" it to the EnWP people that come here to help with Math-related articles?
  4. Do we have an "example", where we could show these benefits, if there are any?
Some time ago, I helped with some Statistics-related articles, let's see if they are any good; or if that methodology can be used for other fields of mathematics...--Eptalon (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could try to help with mathsy articles, but I'm not sure how much I could do- is college level calculus and stats enough? I'm going for scholarship in those two subjects, so editing might help my general knowledge. SS(Kay) 00:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need someone to host a project page on maths/stats. There's a need for a list of key pages and opinions on what's needed. We can't really do the detailed stuff here. As a biologist, I am mostly concerned that probability and statistics pages are adequate, but maths in general is essential for all of science and engineering. If a project page is started, I will participate. Might go well if Kay would host it... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Maths? I'm open to hosting it, by all means, but you're all probably more qualified to do it. You sure? (by the way... are there portals on seWP?) SS(Kay) 22:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects belong into username space. I'd post a project, but I'm not creative in doing this. If someone wants to do, please inform me where I can have a look at it. (if you want you can create it in my name space) I'm willing to help in this area, just give me a hint. Barras talk 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's now at User:Barras/Wikiproject Maths. But the to-do list needs filling up with articles. SS(Kay) 23:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I'm sorry for coming in again! :o I'm just afraid Ian's RFA might just close because there are so few votes. Isn't it supposed to be that there should be at least twenty-five votes? People seem to stop voting. I just came in here to ask some more users to vote for the RFA. But maybe I'm being too impatient! Well, anyway, I hope more participates. Cheers, Belinda 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser and oversight are the ones that require twenty-five votes. RfA is whatever you happen to get. For instance, the final tally of my RfA was 15-3. So no reason to be worried. Cheers,  — laurynashby 08:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I didn't know that. Thanks, Lauryn Ashby! :) -- Belinda 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X!'s edit counter.

I've been deliberating whether it's canvassing or some other crime to do this, but here goes. I'm sure y'all are familiar with this edit counter. I'm a little bit annoyed that the monthly charts are now an opt-in, and I've opted in.

I'd just like to make you guys aware of that, so that those of you who have no objection to your monthly stats being visible can opt in, either locally or globally. The only reason I'm asking this is because I do like to see how much people have gotten up to since they started off. No worries if you don't, though. (I probably sound like a stalker now, actually...) SS(Kay) 09:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to opt-in but I have no idea how to do it. If you can give instructions, I would be more then willing to do it. (because I like the monthly charts too. :) ) mccon99 13:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put in your name on the edit counter and scroll down. The instructions are there. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a way to do it Wikipedia by Wikipedia, and a way to do it from Meta. If you have a meta account or accounts on several wikis, I recommend the Meta one Purplebackpack89 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thx all. mccon99 17:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor help

I've opened up a page at Wikipedia:Editor help modeled off en:Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Wasn't sure where to post this, but it could probably use some more watchers if anyone is willing. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO, it's not really needed, as this is where the questions should be asked. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how will this differ from asking people questions on Simple Talk? Or Administrators' Noticeboard? Or someone's talk page? Either way (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion, it works well at en, and could work well here as the project grows. No prejudice against redirecting the page, however. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're a much smaller project than EN - this page is a combination of all the pumps and help pages; we don't need another one. I'm going to take the liberty of re-directing it here. Goblin 12:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]
No problemo! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with {{citation}}

I'm having problems with this template. The parameter "pages" doesn't seem to work. I added the template to American Robin with page numbers, but they are not showing up in the references (diffs: 1 and 2). Can someone please fix this? Thanks! Megan|talkcontribs 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The doc page doesn't list a "pages" parameter. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could install importScript('User:Bsadowski1/refToolbar.js'); to your monobook, if you like. :) I find it very helpful. —Classical Esther 01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Griffin:On this page, on the left, it lists all of the parameters. One of them says "pages". @Esther:Thanks for the advice. I'll try it out soon. Megan|talkcontribs 01:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imported the en version. Let me know of any errors. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The error is now fixed. Thank you very much. And Esther, I added the script to my monobook.js. It works very nicely. Thanks again. Megan|talkcontribs 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proposed change

I have proposed a change to the User talk guideline at Wikipedia talk:User talk page. Comments are welcome. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs help

Could someone take a look at the blackpool article? It has red template links at the top and I am not sure how to fix it. Thanks! (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Griffinofwales (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogyū Sorai

Hello all, I just "translated" one of the translations of the week, Ogyū Sorai. For my part, I am done simplifying, but it would be good if someone could proofread, and fix the parts I forgot. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - alright, here's my proofread. The problem is still the 'teachings' section, where all the different philosophies can be quite confusing. :) Well I didn't have a lot of changes; it's a good translation to be sure! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Such 'translations' usually are a lot of work, an as I am a non-native speaker, finding replacements for difficult phrasing isn't easy, at times. --Eptalon (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be broken? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fixed now? Griffinofwales (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks it at first glance. Thanks. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in...

I'm just checking in. I've not really found a good internet connection yet, so editing is almost precluded at this time. I'm reading however. I hope everyone is well, I am well also. Anyone remember dialup :) Very best, Jon@talk:~$ 06:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dialup? I remember Windows 3.1. ;)  — laurynashby 06:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you viewing this page on Netscape Navigator? ;-) Either way (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember when I thought that cable modems were special and few people had them. Hope to see you back soon! Kansan (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. On school there are computers using Windows 95 and Netscape Navigator works slooooow.... Well, they have just 32 MB of Ram, so... see you soon Jon! :-D --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A second to late

I was going to post this, but an edit conflict with Peter, closing the RfA didn't left me no time. I want to make sure people know how grateful I am so here is my message about my withdraw (I hope its okay that I post this here. If not, delete it. I just want to make sure people know I'm not disappointed).

"Thank you all for taking the time to vote and give me advice. I'd especially like to thank my wonderful nominator, Belinda. All in all, I'm over my head. I thought I was ready, but obviously not. Again, thank you all for this wonderful opportunity only few wikipedian's get to have. I will leave knowing that I did my very best and have much to work on. I can never thank you all enough for this opportunity you all have given me. Hopefully I may try again in the future."

Thanks again, mccon99 18:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad that you seem to be keeping a good perspective on this. You are a very good editor, and whether you have the admin tools or not does not change that and the fact that you can still continue to do a lot for this site. Keep up your good work and I wouldn't be surprised to see you get the tools in the future. Kansan (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I was extremely surprised at such a closure! I was very disappointed when you withdrew. And of course, as I said before, I was only honored to be able to be your nominator. There's nothing to thank me for; it was my pleasure. I hope you can fix all the issues the community does not approve of, and then when you feel that you are ready enough again you can ask me to nom you. I'm always free and happy to nominate you! I'll be hoping for a new and successful RFA in the future. ^^* Yours truly, Belinda 04:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kansan is right, you're an excellent editor who everyone appreciates. Please keep up the good work! I'm sorry you couldn't get the tools, but as they really make no difference in your merit, I am glad to see you are still working as hard as ever. God ever bless, —Classical Esther 12:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GB4 New Feature

Template:Vandalism information Hello Happy Happy Chappies on the Simple 'Pedia.

Just let y'all know that GB4 now has a new feature enabled, which is the updating of {{Vandalism information}} when people ask it to via IRC.

Here's what the template looks like →

It probably won't be totally accurate as it's human powered so needs to be updated with a command by our friends on IRC. The command that you can use is !defcon <level number> [comment] (I think.)

Any problems, report them to JIRA (link at User:GoblinBot4).

Ta, Goblin 18:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Are we supposed to use the number that is currently set on ENWP, or is there another way of determining that? -Avicennasis @ 03:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the number is supposed to be the current amount of vandalism happening now/recently on this wiki. There is no formula, you just get a feel for it based on Special:RecentChanges and adjust it accordingly. EhJJTALK 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any plans to have GoblinBot4 automatically update it based on how much GB4 is reverting vandalism? Or, it can scan RecentChanges for how often "revert" appears in the edit summary / number of recent blocks. EhJJTALK 13:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avi, no, we use our own number depending on how much vandalism we have here. The numbering system is the same, though.
EhJJ, good idea. I'll have a look into it... Goblin 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
That is a great idea, though I think the bot should only check for rollbacks. I will see what tweak to the code I can do. Chenzw  Talk  11:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Infobox Settlement template

There seems to be a problem with the current template:Infobox Settlement template. The locations are not being mapped correctly. Please see User:The Three Headed Knight/Sandbox for an example. The top image (in white) is mapped using the dot map x & y procedure. The second image is mapped using the pushpin map procedure. The third image (in the second infobox) is mapped using a copy of the english wikipedia template saved in my user space.

You can clearly see that the current template has moved City of Toledo into the state of Michigan! I am afraid Ohio will declare war if this is not rectified :-) --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mapping for the settlement template does not work. Its something I have been trying to find the bug in for a number of months. -DJSasso (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP

Hello there. I've been here before, on another IP, never really had an account. This IP is shared; be careful with blocking summaries as it's a computer cafe's IP. I'm not going to vandalise, no intention of that. how do I help here? -- (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in this position needs to register a handle; then they'll get treated as an individual. As it is, this individual may have good intentions, but others in the café may not. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links to Wiktionary

Often, we have links within our articles that direct to the Simple English Wiktionary, but those pages may very well not exist. I would like to propose the use of {{dead wikt link}} (which is similar to {{dead link}}) to help categorize these pages (to Category:Articles with dead wiktionary links) and make it simpler to fix them. Obviously, it makes more sense for someone who finds a dead link to simply fix it, but tagging is something that could be done by bot quite easily, with humans fixing the broken articles. I'd also like to suggest that, if such a bot is run, that it also find links to English Wiktionary and replace them with links to Simple English Wiktionary (tagging the link as broken, if needed). Thoughts? EhJJTALK 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, dear EhJJ, that's such a wonderful idea. Most of my wikts are so hard to link because after I link it, I always have to check each of them to see if there is really a definition existing in the wiktionary. I hope that idea works! Belinda 05:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@EhJJ; Yes, just go for it. Frankly, and I've said this before, editors of SEWP should (read: MUST) also be very active on SEWT. I don't actually see us as sister projects, but as one project. (Yes, I'm as guilty as most others). Good idea! fr33kman 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to see how other people felt about it before I started making these changes. I've written a bot (User:EhJBot5) that will tag links to wikt that don't work. I'll have it doing very limited and supervised test runs while I'm by the computer. If it's working fine, I'll be requesting a bot flag per the usual methods. EhJJTALK 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots#EhJBot5 about how, exactly, the broken links to Wiktionary should appear on this Wikipedia. I would ask that users please leave comments there (or here), if they have an opinion. Currently, links can look like this

(with or without an in-line <!-- comment -->), or the can have a small link [?] that will explain the link, for example: 

this . This will also make it easier to fix the broken links, since they will appear in the text, but it could make it less enjoyable to read. Thanks! EhJJTALK 15:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This category will be very helpful over at SE WKT. I have a (far from complete) list of pages that link to SE WKT at wikt:User:Tygrrr/Pages Simple English Wikipedia says we have#Some words linked here in articles on Simple English Wikipedia (in-text). I will use this category to help me add to the list so we can know which pages we need to create there. Another useful thing that takes just slightly more time than adding {{dead wikt link}} of course would be to create a really basic definition and a regular SE WKT user (likely me) will go through and format everything for you. Food for thought :-) · Tygrrr... 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I've also created the page User:EhJBot5/wordlist which lists all wikt word links and the wikipedia articles that link to those words. I should be able to create an identical page on wiktionary, which (since the links will be red) will show which wikt definitions are missing. I have also thought about creating a bot that could do most of the work of converting an en.wikt page to a simple.wikt page and would need a human to "translate" the definition. That's a project for the not-too-distant future. EhJJTALK 13:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I look forward to seeing the page there! Also, a general note to everyone using the dead link template: Wiktionary is case-sensitive. Only proper nouns are capitalized, so some of the links can be fixed simply by changing a capital letter to a lowercase letter (like this). · Tygrrr... 18:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know that Wiktionary uses lowercase at the start of some words! (That is not possible in Wikipedia article names). I have updated the bot to look for lower-case versions of words and fix them if they don't exist as-written. If you notice anything else, please let me know and I'll adjust the bot. Thanks! EhJJTALK 14:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Perhaps one of the other admins can explain this to me. Why does [[wikt:Word]] link to the Simple English Wiktionary, while [[wiktionary:Word]] links to the regular English Wiktionary? I would expect [[en:wikt:Word]] and [[en:Wiktionary:Word]] to be needed, to get to regular English. Thanks! EhJJTALK 05:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, probably a dev error when setting up the interwiki links. A bug request should solve it. Goblin 12:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty![reply]
Submitted a bug report bugzilla:23142. I'm new to bugzilla, so if the report needs to be reformatted, or more details added, please do so. EhJJTALK 14:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe this is normal behaviour as wikipedia:whatever always points to english while the short form w:whatever points to the local language. This happens on all the languages. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then nothing needs to be done locally. However, I think some changes to meta:Help:Interwiki linking might be needed, as the table at the top seems to imply that they are equivalent, and these sentences: "The long form doesn't work within the same project. The shortcut works everywhere." don't really explain how the long form and short form are different (one links to en, while the other to the local language), saying that the long form "doesn't work" possibly implies that it links to the namespace, not project (which would be my understanding of those sentences). EhJJTALK 16:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that to most laymen English Wikipedia is Wikipedia which is why the long form links there. Its only to people who edit more than one wiki that has a different view. I believe that is why it works that way. But yeah definitely something to bring up if you think it should change. -DJSasso (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why it is the way it is. If you're on Bugzilla and linking to Wiktionary, there is no correct language. So, makes sense to default to en, since it's "the" Wiktionary. If links on all wikis (epecially non-WMF wikis), it shouldn't be different on WMF wikis. So, let Wiktionary point to enwikt, as long as wikt: remains simple.wikt. That said, should be replace Wiktionary:x links with wikt:x links, in our Article space? I would think so! EhJJTALK 03:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it authorised? Why? SS(Kay) 08:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's the toolserver IP. When a bot edits from there, it means it has somehow logged off. Pmlineditor  08:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I shoulda known that... :P oops. SS(Kay) 08:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Processing Techniques

This is the first line of this wiki page, by which I try to record something I think being interesting to share with other people. Hopefully, it may be useful for some people engaging in related research areas. By the way, due to my poor English, it is unavoidable for me to make errors, so please feel free to point out these errors helping me to correct them. Thanks very much. — This unsigned comment was added by Xiaobird (talk • changes).

Timestamp to facilitate automatic archiving: 20:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania Scholarships

The call for applications for Wikimania Scholarships to attend Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk, Poland (July 9-11) is now open. The Wikimedia Foundation offers Scholarships to pay for selected individuals' round trip travel, accommodations, and registration at the conference. To apply, visit the Wikimania 2010 scholarships information page, click the secure link available there, and fill out the form to apply. For additional information, please visit the Scholarships information and FAQ pages:

Yours very truly, Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation

Timestamp for archival purposes: 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


After a discussion with User:Mann jess, I've thought that perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia could use a (obviously simplified) version of en:WP:Fringe from the English Wikipedia, and have been considering asking to import it for simplification and then possible approval. Thoughts before going ahead? Kansan (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! That would probably be quite useful. I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't be approved. —Classical Esther 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it.  — laurynashby 02:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems alright, although it does make me think we ought to have a simplified version of en:Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, too. EhJJTALK 17:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do share your concerns on that; I agree that if we have so many instruction pages, they will end up being read less and less. With that in mind, although the English Wikipedia doesn't do this, could we just incorporate a paragraph or so on this topic into WP:Reliable sources instead? It would really fall under that scope, too. Kansan (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a guideline whose name escapes me for the moment that if we don't have a guideline/policy that we follow en. I think this is a case where we should just leave it to the en page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph of Wikipedia:Rules. EhJJTALK 22:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we at least link there from WP:Reliable sources, it would work. I still wouldn't mind adding a little more to that page, too, perhaps illustrating what are and aren't good sources for research. That's the educator side in me, though, and that is taking us a bit afield. Kansan (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and written a proposed added paragraph at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. After the aforementioned discussion (which regarded moon landing conspiracy theories and the (undue, in my opinion) weight given to some of them on that page), and seeing recent debates on whether creationist sources should be used in biology articles, I think that there is a need for something more pronounced on this issue. Kansan (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K's summary is pretty good. I've added to same place an account of reliable sources in science. It is not intended to be original, just to underline some principles which seem to need emphasising. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, thoughts on incorporating any of the proposed text? Kansan (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importing from other Wikipedias than the English

After this, I come here to reach consensus to allow importing from other wikis apart from the English one. If my request for importer successes, I'll be importing more oftenly from the Spanish or Catalan Wikipedias... What do you think? --Diego Grez let's talk 21:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea. Especially since we can translate them. Well someone can.. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see it as necessary; the English Wikipedia has the most articles (over 3.000.000) than any other Wikipedia, so it is doubtful that something will exist on another Wikipedia that does not already exist on the English one. Additionally, it seems highly unlikely that someone will wish to import something from the French Wikipedia (for example) and then translate it from French to English and then from English to Simple English.  — laurynashby 21:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't means it is complete. These Wikipedias have very long and good articles, on the topics I like, but en.WP sometimes doesn't. --Diego Grez let's talk 21:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Addendum: I think I write in a Simple English, so I can translate directly from Spanish -> Simple English :-b --Diego Grez let's talk 21:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are times when articles in a different language may have more (or different) content. An example would be en:Bochum and eo:Bochum. Also, sometimes there are formatting differences, where one would be better than the other - en:Names of European cities in different languages and eo:Listo de nomoj de eŭropaj urboj en diversaj lingvoj. As long as the imports are taken to userspace first, I don't see any issues. -Avicennasis @ 02:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point to import an article in another language. Because it would have to be immediately blanked because its in another language. Just translate it on your own computer or in a new page box and then enter it here. -DJSasso (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  I didn't said it /had/ to be imported directly to the mainspace. I can move it to my userspace and work on it there. It's because of the attribution thing. --Diego Grez let's talk 00:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a bad idea. :) -- Belinda 00:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are rewriting it in another language its not really going to be an issue with attribution unless you translate word for word, sentence for sentence which I highly doubt you would do. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are doing a direct translation just use the attribution template. -DJSasso (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jump and Jumping?

There are two articles, Jump, and another recently made article, Jumping. I suggest we move jump to jumping, per enwiki? Or else it would get confusing. Belinda 06:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! :) fr33kman 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, how do I move it? Can't you just delete the page jump so we can just use Jumping? Belinda 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply click the move tab on the top of the page, enter the article you wish to move it to, and give a reason why. I-on/talk/book/sand 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is not that simple, because the page she wants to move it to already exists. What you would have to do is take the information on Jump and merge it with the info on Jumping. Then, redirect Jump to Jumping. Megan ( t/c ) 17:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to start a Wikiproject, but do not know much about this wiki. How can I do it? Rin tin tin (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your user space. For example: If you were to create a wikiproject about me, which I'm sure is what you want to do (:P), you would create User:Rin tin tin/Wikiproject Griffinofwales. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convention for Japanese names?

Isn't there a naming convention for articles like Yōkai, that should be named instead Yokai, by example?. --Diego Grez let's talk 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, diacritics are a nasty topic. Generally leave them as you find them (ie if they have them leave them on, if they don't have them then don't add them. Just make sure there is a redirect from the other version.). I personally support having them. But its a pretty bad war on en whether articles should have them or not. Personally I think if any wiki should have them it would be us since we are trying to make people that read other languages more comfortable. -DJSasso (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Diego Grez let's talk 01:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a convention; what i usually do is have the article at the version with diacritics, and provide a "no-diacritics" redirect to it. The other option is to do it the other way round. --Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article...

Hello all,

just found an interesting article at the Guardian: Globish: the worldwide dialect of the third millennium. They talk about, a constructed language. --Eptalon (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A helpful bot revealed a mistake I need to correct. This also caused questions.

I used the word "legendary" to describe an early emperor of Japan. I intended to link the word to a Simple.Wikipedia article, as in [[Legend|legendary]]; but maybe this is bad form?

Would it be better to create a Simple.Wiktionary link for a word variant?

In different words: Is it more helpful or preferred to direct enquiry towards internal hyperlinks?

There is a current entry for wikt:myth|legendary]]. There is a Simple.Wikipedia article about Myth.

What factors should inform my decision-making in terms of this one word? --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. PiRSquared17 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean by 'legendary'. If his existence is in a legend, that's one thing. But if you just mean 'famous' well, use that word. Also, try cutting it out altogether. Adjectives get over-used and are often unhelpful and redundant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments.

The current constitutional monarch is considered the 125th Emperor of Japan according to Japan's traditional order of succession. Very little information is available for study before the rule of the 29th monarch, Emperor Kimmei who reigned in the 6th century. The earliest written records date from the 8th century. In this thin context, "legendary" is a conventional term used by historians to describe these early rulers.

My question was about whether an internal link to the article or an external link to the wiktionary entry is preferred? Maybe it doesn't matter. For now, I will correct my error by creating an internal hyperlink to the simple.Wikitionary article about legend; and the second use of the word will link to simple.Wiktionary.

This may be one of those questions which do not have answers. At present, there is no consensus; and so I will make a choice and we will see what happens. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle vandalism

Just a general bulletin: I've personally noticed an increase in subtle vandalism while RC patrolling the last few days. Some people are changing dates or words so that the amount of characters that have changed are very low (or even 0), but we still need to make sure that these don't slip through the cracks. Kansan (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I went through 3-4 days of ip changes, looking at all diffs. I reverted a lots of vandlism that hadn't been seen. We need to a way to stop this happenning. Yottie =talk= 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a problem, but I don't see what can be done. EnWP probably has this problem also. Good job to Yot for looking back in RC (it's a very boring job). Maybe every day we should look at the edits for the past 24 hours and revert anything missed. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and yes, probably the only solution. Yottie =talk= 11:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any chance I can be confirmed before the autoconfirmation criteria of 4 days/10 edits? I am a fairly established editor on the English Wikipedia, and I would like to upload a picture and edit the protein article. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Simple Wikipedia doesn't have a confirmed user group. Also note that image uploading here directly isn't allowed. You can upload them to Wikimedia Commons though. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 00:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll upload it through commons. Thanks! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, is there no IP-block-exempt group as well? Because my school's IP has been 3-year blocked on enWP, and should that be extended to a global block I would like to still be able to edit here. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You personally would not be blocked: because you are a registered user you would be treated on your own merits. You just sign in each time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I sign in at en, but I still can't edit because of the IP block. I don't know why. Singlish speaker (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Dang, forgot to sign out. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a group of autoconfirmed users. At en admins are technically able to grant users with confirmed only if necessary, which is rare. I'm not too sure of we can do such a thing here. @Sonia, there is an IP-block-exempt group that can be granted. If you're autoblocked because of it on your school's IP it's probably best to give a Block ID if available and unblock it. However if there isn't such thing an IP block exempt could be issued. Nifky^ 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a global IP block exempt flag available. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global IPBE only bypasses global blocks. For local block, you need the flag locally. Barras talk 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what Sonia was worried about. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone. So basically, there is the capability for an IP-block-exempt usergroup, but it's not shown on wp:User access levels. That's good. One last question... what's a block ID? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special:BlockList, there you can see the #number which is the block ID. Barras talk 08:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Enzyme article uses the English Wikipedia as a footnoted source. Are such user-generated tertiary sources considered reliable on Simple Wikipedia? Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't be used as as source. WP:SOURCE may have more info about this. Yottie =talk= 12:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the source, added fact template. Moved link to See also section. Yottie =talk= 12:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that was the case. I just wanted to be sure. Thanks! P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the En.Wiki article about it is FA, you could go there and find many sources to use in the article here. So, it can be used as a resource to find sources, but not as a source itself. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change the "change this page" tab to "edit this page"

I personally prefer "edit this page" over "change this page", and all the other wikis use "edit this page". Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has actually been discussed and debated here before, but as of now, most of the community prefers "change" because unlike "edit", "change" is on the Basic English alphabetical wordlist, which is significant because this project is mostly based on Basic English. Kansan (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we need to be consistent with other Wikipedias. Also, the word "edit" is still fairly basic. Immunize (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one other english wikipedia. So what are we being consistant with? Every langauge has their own word for edit. In Simple English the word is "change". -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with keeping it "change". While there is no consistency in the word, each language Wikipedia has its own word, we do need consistency in our own project. So, we have used edit before, and the last debate resulted in "change". No new information has been presented to (pardon my pun) change my standing on this. It is in the basic wordlist, in keeping with Simple English. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My friend Immunize makes many suggestions, and he has the best of intentions, but I must disagree with him on this. I actually see no reason why there should be consistency between the two wikis, as their intentions are quite different. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as change for reasons outlined above. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually no medical content at all

This wikimedia project is in need of massive expansion of medical coverage, as already after only 2 days here I have realized that the article on Brain tumor is missing, and the article on Leukemia is very poor-quality and is still a stub. Is there a wikiproject medicine on this Wikipedia? If not, I feel it needs to be created. Immunize (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikiproject would not accomplish much if people are not already actively editing these articles. If you think the articles are of poor quality or lacking, feel free to edit them yourself at any time. Either way (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no deadline. If something is missing and it is something you are interested in, you add it. That is how wikipedia works. We can't force people to edit articles they aren't interested in. I know a few people here are doctors or med students. Perhaps they can take up your challenege. As for wikiprojects, they don't truely exist here for the most part because we only have about 35 active editors. Some people do informal wikiprojects in their userspace but wikiprojects like you see on don't really exist. Largely due to the 35 editors we have and the millions they have. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also note this WP has very few editors. A good article on medical topics needs a medical background, which most of us don't have. --Eptalon (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the leukemia article: red-link (anemia) is also a risk factor (red link) of developing (some form of leukemia, red-link). I am not a doctor, and a have a decent knowledge of English. The problem is that the three "most important" terms in the sentence are red-links; so how do you expect people who re having trouble with English to get the meaning? - At the moment, Leukemia is a collection of red-links; We should consider taking out the sections with the many red-links, might be better to start over from a stub.... --Eptalon (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect template doc displayed

I updated the doc page for Template:2009–10 NHL Western Conference standings and saved the changed. The updated doc page displays correctly. Click on the template link, and the old doc page is displayed. From the template page, if you click on any of the links to edit the doc page (edit, transcluded, or /doc subpage), the correct (updated) source of the doc page is displayed. Refreshing the browser doesn't help.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has resolved itself. Edited the template and the correct doc page is now being loaded. It looks like the transclusions are not being automatically refreshed.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transclusions can take up to a day to refresh depending on the size of the job queue. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First VGA of 2010?

Just had a look, but we don't seeem to have had any VGA in 2010 yet, most poeple are striving for GA. Hence the question, are there any suitable candidates, and what will be the first VGA of 2010? :) --Eptalon (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Tree. That's for sure... PiRSquared17 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's seem to me that we have had 1, 2, 3 VGAs this year. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thank you

I just wanted to thank everybody who participated in my RfA. I really appreciate the support from everybody. Kansan (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yay! You passed! (not that there was any doubt, but...) Belated congrats. :) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! :) I see you're already actively doing a really great job as an admin (even as I type this down you're blocking a vandal). :D Please keep up the good work, dear Kansan! Sincerely, —Classical Esthertalk 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change "edit conflict" to "change conflict"

Change is in the top 850 simple words and "change this page" is used instead of "edit," therefore, "edit conflict" should be replaced with "change conflict." PiRSquared17 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:ec PiRSquared17 02:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to require creating an account to create pages

I feel that logging in/creating an account should be required to create a new article, as the main English Wikipedia has this policy, and so far, all of the pages I have seen that have been quick-deleted have been created by IP's. Immunize (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I can see here is that we have some IPs willing to help here. I think we would just disappoint people not willing to create an account here, but willing to write articles. The next problem I see is that we would get more vandal accounts to block. We need to attract more people instead of restrict the editing ability. Our community is far smaller than English Wikipedia's one. I doubt that it will be the best. However, I don't really care, so just see it as a comment. Barras talk 15:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ENwiki have enough users, we don't. We need more, so let's not stop IPs creating articles because then, we would be potentially losing people willing to help. Yottie =talk= 16:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like a new article reviewed

This wiki really should have a Requests for feedback page. The main enWikipedia already has one, and I feel it would encourage new users to edit. Immunize (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have one. Click here. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a help desk on this wiki? If not, it should be created. It is very useful on the main Wikipedia. Immunize (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We use this page as the help desk. Either way (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just about everything is centralized here. At enWP, the users who usually man the helpdesk are different to the users at the development village pump, who are different again to the users at AfD. We have a small community, so it's better to have one high-traffic page that everyone can monitor, than several low-traffic pages that people will forget about. Just my 2¢. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that we should have a separate help desk, as this page alone will not be enough once this community expands, more new users will require help. This page would then become more like the village pump on Wikipedia. Immunize (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll worry about that when it happens. I would like to reiterate that we are NOT the English Wikipedia, and are not trying to become one. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're saying it yourself, once this community expands. We are not at a point where we are big enough and need that. Either way (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mmhughes (talk · contribs) added several new articles a couple of days ago. Each of them should probably be deleted. They all read like personal essays on topics that are far too specific for Wikipedia. One is already up for RFD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/The Building of the Hoover Dam: Men and Their Families. I want to see if there is consensus to just delete the rest, or if we want to go through RFD with them all. Thanks, Either way (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn the current RFD into an RFD on all the articles. If users want all of them deleted, they should state so on the RFD. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like someone to review my RfA

Please review my RfA, I am not convinced I set it up correctly. Best wishes.Immunize (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the RfA myself, and retired from editing this wiki. Immunize (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immunize, didn't you do the same at enWP not too long ago? Do reconsider. Not being an admin doesn't make you any less valued in the community. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to take a short wikibreak and then return. Immunize (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to have them here?

And on a completely unrelated note: I downloaded ChatZilla, but have no idea how to use IRC. The tutorials are confusing, can anyone help? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice? As for IRC, just type in (on the address bar), click #wikipedia-simple (not connect) > #wikipedia-simple connect. That should do it. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Griffinofwales said, go to here and type in a nickname, for example, "Sonia", and on the "channel: address bar", type in wikipedia-simple. It's pretty easy. :) Happy changing, Belle tête-à-tête 12:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you have to type in #wikipedia-simple. :) I look forward to talking with you. —Classical Esthertalk 12:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually Belinda, since Sonia is using CZ, the procedure is different. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In ChatZilla when it first loads you will see a '*client*' tab of some sort. At the bottom of the text, you will see some hyperlinked networks; click on the 'freenode' one. This will open up a freenode connection tab for you to connect to freenode once you click on it. Identify to nickserv, then join #wikipedia-simple by typing '/join #wikipedia-simple'. I think editnotices are for each namespace like on en, right? Nifky^ 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notices can also be configured on a per-page basis. In fact, we have a working example right now, at WP:VIP. Chenzw  Talk  15:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out w:Wikipedia:Editnotice for enwiki's "how to" page on them (which should be applicable here as well). EVula // talk // // 15:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the permission levels are the same, Outside of User and User Talk spaces, Editnotices elsewhere (say, in Articlespace) are only editiable by Admins (18) and Account Creators (0). I would assume you'd have to put a request in to have an admin create/edit the editnotice. :) -Avicennasis @ 19:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. About editnotices, the reason why I was asking is that there seems to be a default one for user talk pages, and I can't see the editnotice red link.
@Nifky: Identify to nickserv? (Or should I just use whatever Belinda's using?) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made an editnotice, but it's not showing up. And I found out why. Is there a way to change that? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be using edit notices for such things, they are only meant for the most urgent of messages. Not for userspace fun. And no that is the editnotice set for all talk pages and shouldn't be mucked with. -DJSasso (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. Sorry. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to disagree with DJSasso on this point: Editnotices are used widely for matters that are not "urgent". (See the editnotice on ENWP's Republic of China.) Since we don't have a local Editnotice page, one has to look at English Wikipedia's page on editnotices, which doesn't really restrict their use. Although we really shouldn't change MediaWiki:Talkpagetext without consensus. (Not that anyone other than an admin can, anyways.) -Avicennasis @ 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email Notices

I'll ask since it's kind of related: Does anyone have opinons on emailnotices? Not that I expect this will be a big deal, just kind of curious. :) -Avicennasis @ 07:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an emailnotice? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. For example, my email page on ENWP has one: here. :) -Avicennasis @ 17:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It is possible to have editnotices on a per page basis. In fact, I have just imported a few templates from EN that will allow this to happen. Therefore, I propose that:

  • Users are allowed to have editnotices on their user page and user talk page. (but not subpages)
  • The content of their editnotices shall be subject to the same guidelines for user page content.
  • Editnotices should not have contain colours that distract users from the rest of the page.
  • Abuse of editnotices in userspace shall lead to blanking and protection of the editnotice page.
  • Editnotices for pages in all other namespaces should exist only for the purpose of informing users, of which only administrators can create.

Thoughts? Chenzw  Talk  04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no harm in it, because those who will be using editnotices are probably those who have enough clue to not misuse them. I'd add to your second point though: Editnotices should only contain information relevant to the editing of that page. (Not, for example, a listing of the user's pets or something else that could just go on the userpage- but I guess that's a given.) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to do it on a per page basis, but I still don't believe we should allow user space editing to extend to mediawiki space. We aren't a webhost or myspace. There really isn't a valid reason for users to have edit notices for such spaces. Just include the message you want on the top of your talk page and they will see it before they hit edit. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really see the point in creating a policy yet. Policy (IMO) should be in response to a problem, which I don't really see here. Otherwise, it's needless paperwork, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. :) The other side of the coin is the wording - what are distracting colors? What I think is distracting may not be to another user, and this kind of gray-area can lead to trouble. I also don't see the point in allowing edit notices on top pages but not subpages: if I add, say, a small editnotice on my userpage saying something like "Feel free to edit this page if you think you can improve it!" What would be the harm in the same on my /todo subpage? Just my thoughts. -Avicennasis @ 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not simple enough

I think many articles here are still not simple enough for people to understand. And many big words are not necessary.
Perhaps we shoud choose some daily words and design a web tool. When one is editing and article and uses words other than those, the tool can inform him/her. Gesalbte (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. :) Actually, there are some Basic English words (see Wikipedia:Basic English ordered wordlist), and there's a web tool that underlines complex words. If the search engine you use can download it, I'll be happy to give you the link to accessing it. —Classical Esthertalk 01:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link. Hope it helps, Belle tête-à-tête 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]