Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 82

Promoting this Wikipedia

This has been discussed before, but I have two separate suggestions:

Put Simple English just under English in the "In other languages" bar

I think part of the reason we get so little traffic is that if you're looking at the languages, you're not going to specifically look under S for Simple English. It is not a language that intuitively exists in its alphabetical order; it would be more logical to subgroup it just under English. S is too far down the alphabet for people to stumble across the interwiki link by browsing the bar.

This isn't something that Simple Wikipedia can control. This is done on a wiki by wiki basis and isn't controlled from this wiki, different wikis order their interwikis differently. You would need to propose this on each wiki individually. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming it "English - Simple" would probably be an easier sell, and we could take the tack that it's a subset of English more than an entirely new language altogether. Realistically, I'm not sure it would be possible to sell it on, say, the English Wikipedia, given how strong the contingent from there was that wanted to delete this project last time deletion was proposed, but such a naming scheme intuitively makes sense to me. Kansan (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was controlled from meta, apparently not. So out of curiosity, where is the page (that controls this) on this wiki located? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...or just have it be at the top of the bar (as on en:Main Page). PiRSquared17 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific templates on complex enWP articles

There are templates linking to Wikibooks and Commons, stating that there is related material on the other project.

I thought one could be made to be added to articles on En that are lengthy or scientific- to which we have a good counterpart. How's this? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This article too complex?

Try it in Simple English:
Simple talk/Archive 82

This one also is something that would have to be proposed at English Wikipedia as well, as how content is displayed is up to them and not us. I have a feeling this would be shot down pretty quick as they would say this is the purpose of interwiki links. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some users don't bother to look at the interwiki links. PiRSquared17 17:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I am just saying that this is what I think they will say based on similar discussions in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Until fairly recently, I had no idea what interwiki links were, and I've been an admin on Wikimedia projects for well over a year. I imagine uninvolved readers will have even more trouble figure out what they're for. That said, I do think this particular proposal is an excellent idea, and in my opinion, would help Simple fulfill its purpose (to provide easy-to-read counterparts to complex enwiki articles). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this last proposal. Seems good. :) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 23:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If enWP agrees, I'd go for it, but only for our best articles (GA/VGA?). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh... that's only like 80 articles. I would support trying to limit it to "decent" articles, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the most clueful editor, so I won't propose this on enWP just yet. But if I do, how should I go about it? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your heart is in the right place, but this just isn't feasible. If an article is too complex, a user isn't going to scroll to the bottom to look for an external link template, and that's exactly where this would be. Nobody on enwiki will want to place it at the top of the article; that's where the infobox lives, and the infobox is of far greater importance to a wider audience than a Simple English-linking box. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that if an article's really long I scroll to the bottom just to see how big it is. (And some aren't at the bottom- when I first looked up en:Dulce et Decorum Est, I discovered Wikisource.) I don't think it'll ever be possible to have the box up the top, but at least it's better than just the interwiki. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It will probably be pretty hard to convince the English Wikipedia to accept this proposal, but I believe that if accepted, it will be very useful for Simple. :) I certainly don't agree with putting it up on the top of the page, but I think it would be a great help even down in the bottom of the page. Even when I don't understand a word of the article, I usually scroll down and scan it over to see what it's mainly about. —Classical Esther^talk 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We could put it in a hatnote, where dabs and such go. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion but I think that would be asking for en editors to make an organized attempt to shut us down, instead of the ad-hoc ones that have happened in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote's a good idea... @Djsasso: Why? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 21:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of en.wiki want to shut this wiki down. By throwing up links on the tops of pages directing them here, you are shoving this wiki into their faces. And if I were only an editor at en, I would say hat notes at the top of the article would be an eyesore. Since I edit here, I understand how this helps us at simple. But if I were just an en editor, I wouldn't like it, and the argument would come up that we would have to do it for other languages too. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I could propose these ideas at the enWP village pump. Personally, I feel that, although it could not be at the top of the page, it should be in a reasonably prominent position in the page. Should I propose at enWP village pump., or should I wait? Immunize (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, wait. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 02:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Since coming here it's became obviously clear that this Wikipedia desperately needs all the contributors it can get-so I do not see why I should wait. Given that I feel we are particularly in need of additional medical articles, and in expansion of the ones we already have, I may encourage or post a notice encouraging editors active on English Wikipedia's WikiProject medicine to help out at simple. Immunize (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That it does, Immunize. No problems with Wikiproject medicine starting a local chapter here- by all means, do get them to help over here. But regardless (and I think it's a good idea), consensus has to be established before we do something like this. Not just whether we should do it, but how. Someone like me, who is not of any standing on either wiki, is going to get shot down if I just propose it out of the blue. And I think we both should wait to gather a little more input on how to propose this if we do. Just my 2¢.

This is a random comment so I can sign the section so the bot will archive it eventually. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

almost completely lost.

Other than reverting vandalism and adding citations, what else can i do here?wiooiw ^(talk) 06:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think you'll find there's a lot of articles that English Wikipedia has that we don't have, that need to be simplified. What you can do is find a niche that you're interested in (Mine is music- these are my current project), and fill the gaps by simplifying articles from over there. Searching for pictures on Commons to add to articles is also something else that is useful. :) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, searching for pictures on Commons seems easy...wiooiw ^(talk) 07:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also fun to participate in Did You Know, helping to select Good Articles and Very Good Articles, though you have to read the rules in them over first. —Classical Esther^talk 10:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a ton to be done. Another thing you might want to explore is this list. All the articles on there are tagged as having too many redlinks. You can go through the articles and create the new articles to turn the red to blue. Either way (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another: Wikipedia:Community Portal. There's a lot do be done. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 11:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Count

Is there a list of Wikipedians by edit count? It would be interesting to see that list. I saw it referenced on a user's page once. Rin Tin Tin 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LOW PiRSquared17 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:N-EDITS is working. --Diego Grez (alternate account) ^{alt. talk} 01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Image size

Currently, the default image size for thumbnails in articles is 180px, which is quite small and often difficult to see. While this can be adjusted with user preferences, the English Wikipedia recently changed their default image size to 250 pixels, which makes images much more useful. Given the lack of any major problems (to my knowledge) since the change, I'd like to propose that Simple follow suit. Any comments? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A wonderful idea. I have no objections to it. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but to be sure, should we show some comparison screenshots? Kansan (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see how 250px thumbnails are different from 180px thumbnails. PiRSquared17 02:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See below for an example. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Support PiRSquared17 02:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

@Kansan: I can do if necessary, but each article is different and it's hard to pick a good, neutral test sample. Best to just do it via preview methinks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing those images side by side is enough to convince me that increasing them as per your proposal would be a good idea. Kansan (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, juliancolton: I do like the thought! :) Lots of pictures are rather hard to see, and I think this increase in size would be quite helpful. —Classical Esther^talk 02:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, although imo I quite like it at 230 px. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer 250 to 230 because much of our target audience may benefit from clear visual depictions of concepts. Kansan (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think 250 is more ideal. If an image is worth including in an article, show it off! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to remember that one of the reasons smaller images are prefered is that not all people accessing wikipedia are doing so from a full fledged browser or with resolutions that will support large images without taking over the entire screen. This is especially important on simple.wiki since our target audience is even more likely to have these considerations than en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's very true. I'll wait and see what other folks have to say on the issue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have felt for a long time that the present default is too small, though I would have gone for something not quite so large as 250px. In any event, I support the general idea. I think illustrations are often an important part of the content of a page, and that Commons is a vital part of the WP system. It is most annoying to find an illustration in enWP that can't be used here because it is not in Commons. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my point exactly, that 250px is a bit... in your face, I guess. Whilst 180 is too small, that's an increase of over 30% from the previous default. Which is why something in 220-230px range was what I felt was needed. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposal makes sense to me - 180 is too small. I usually have increased it to 220, but 250 is OK. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If we're changing it, I'd rather see 220px, but I could be alright with 250px. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, here are our choices:

Stick with 180

a compromise at 220

[[Image:Mona Lisa.jpg|250px|thumb|...or 250 ]

Should there be a vote? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think 180px is too small & 250px is too big. My personal preference is 200px. ...Aurora... (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll go for 220/230. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the middle of the 3. Not to small, not to big. Its just right. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 14:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily a fair comparison. Here's another image at 230px:

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(<-) I think the graphic above shows one thing very clearly: There is a difference between a photo (or map type) image, and a graph/plot type image. Map-type images profit from larger size, plot type images do not. --Eptalon (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even photographs are often unsatisfying at 230px in my opinion. Images are not meant to be decorative side-features, but rather illustrations that go along with the article and help to educate the reader. They should be just as much a part of the article as the text itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, but pictures- just because they are pictures- will detract from the text if they are too big. I think we all agree 180 is unsatisfactory. If the graph above needed to be enlarged, by all means add another parameter, not leaving it at default. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 00:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We're losing focus of what the images are there for; so what if we can't clearly see a chart? If someone wants to actually read it, they can click on it; it's more important that we present it in a clear fashion without it overpowering the actual text. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think 200px is fine. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

200px is only marginally bigger than 180 (I wouldn't be able to tell a difference unless they were compared directly against each other. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another choice

Hmm. Then I agree with the 250px. 225px should be better. Cheers. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

200px is good. --I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll start a straw-poll, which seems like a reasonable way forward. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep at 180px

1. Keep this size. If people want to make an individual photo larger, set it manually. I think going up larger takes away from the text of the article. The majority of photos can get their point across at 180. More detailed photos can be manually set to have higher pixels if needed. (And if you, personally, want to have larger thumbs, you can set it in your preferences to change the default display). Either way (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
2. I don't really see the point of needing the bigger images to be default. If a particular image needs to be bigger then just set that image to be bigger. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

200px

1. Anything any bigger would over power the text. if you simply think this is to small, you can of course, click on the image. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 11:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Not too big not too small. ...Aurora... (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

225px

1. This is a good compromise for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
2. I think 225 is okay, too. The original pictures were too small; the new one suggested may be a little too big in some pictures. I feel this one is good enough, and if we need bigger pictures, we can write down the size manually. —Classical Esther^talk 01:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
3. We select 225, although it was a split decision. One head (the trouble maker, of course), wanted 222.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
4. 225 is fine. Kansan (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
5. per juliancolton. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
6. This is the bowl of porridge that is just right. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
7. This one is fine. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 16:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
8. In the pages I edit, the graphics are part of the text, not just decoration. Therefore I see no conflict in having a larger default. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

250px

1. Support I don't see why we shouldn't be as aesthetically similar to en as possible. Those learning English and using Simple would theoretically move on to en eventually. So a similar-looking system makes the most sense. --Denalin (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Update

Even though I would have preferred 250px, after over a week of discussion, consensus seems to be in favor of a compromise (225px). As such, I'll file a bugzilla barring any objections in the next few hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for now. The straw poll opened 5 days ago. Let's keep it open for a few more days. I personally don't care, so I'm staying out of it. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I filed one yesterday, actually, and was informed that a default of 220px is being (ultimately) implemented across all wikis. It was very recently changed on enwiki and Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector switchover

It will not be long before Vector comes to Simple English Wikipedia. I find Vector to be very cumbersome to use (finding tabs), too much work to fix (gadgets), and hard to edit with. If it is possible for Monobook to be kept as default, would the community be willing to keep Monobook? Wikinews put their default as Vector several months ago, so I assume requests are considered. On a side note, Hebrew Wikipedia has already conducted a straw poll, and a majority of their users have agreed to keep Monobook (although nothing has yet happened). Being unique is good, as it makes us memorable (how I remembered WN). Griffinofwales (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Monobook is my favorite. :) I hope it will be used. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 11:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict) I like the way it is now. PiRSquared17 11:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like using vector there will be a link next to your username at the top that can disable vector only for your user preferences. That link is only available once vector arrives here. English Wikipedia already has Vector enabled and an opt-out link at the top. Nifky^{^} 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Monobook is far better, but that's just a personal preference. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Monobook only because that's what it's been for as long as I've been using Wikipedia. I'm going to at least give Vector a shot before deciding which skin I prefer. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried it with Wikinews (as that is/was their default). Still don't like it (although I kept it there, unlike other wikis). Griffinofwales (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• You can always just change it back to monobook in your settings/preferences. That is what I've done on commons and enwp.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've used vector since it came out, and I like it. But I have no objection to keeping Monobook as the default. (By the way, do we have to use the new logo too? I don't like it.) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Gordon, IPs and new users can't or don't know how to change it. By making us unique, users remember us. I also agree with Sonia about the logo. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also prefer monobook to be kept as default. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate the new features, which I assume is vector. Therefore, I would rather it not come to this wikipedia. Immunize (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I haven't made up my mind, I like Monobook but have been working on trying to use vector as much as possible. Is it perfect? No of course it isn't but having seen a lot of the studies that they did and having talked to a lot of the staff members that did them I think there is quite a lot of evidence to show that vector has proven to be easier to understand for new users and readers. The new features that are being rolled out at the same time (and the ones planned) also make it easier to contribute and many of them do not work on monobook (one of the main reasons to design vector was to build it to allow these and other features). I think it would be a large mistake to stop the rollout here, in the end we would be trading our own temporary comfort for something designed specifically to make it easier for the new readers and editors that we need. People always hate change when we are comfortable with what we had and we will easily be able to move back to monobook individually after the rollout. James (T C) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I do like the fact that Vector is easier for readers and that the editing toolbar is easier to use. But you do have to get used to change. And also user scripts do have to be converted to work with the Vector skin. Anyways I think some more improvements need to be made to Vector. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 18:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all user scripts work but a huge majority work just when you copy them over to vector.js/css. I have to say I LOVE the new Twinkle dropdown menu on En to the point that I want to switch to vector and use it here as well. Change does take a while to get used to there is no doubt but I'm not sure how much needs to get done to "vector" to be honest. Those who haven't changed over their user scripts did so because they didn't want to there has been no secret that this was coming. In my opinion putting off the change for our comfort just puts it off, it doesn't actually make the change any easier for us. James (T C) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I might switch just because I want to see a new look of Wikipedia though. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 18:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  So, let's start a poll. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Votings

Let's try to form consensus as the Hebrew Wikipedia did :) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep Monobook

• Support --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 18:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support PiRSquared17 18:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support I think I prefer monobook, but Vector may be useful and besides, I can change it to monobook if I want. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 03:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support I like monobook better. Immunize (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Strong support Monobook looks more 3D, and much nicer. Maybe this is just me but the new logo doesn't even look round. I-on/^talk/_book/^sand 11:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Switch to Vector

• Ugh, I think it's way too soon to do a poll anyway, but I think we'd be doing ourselves a disservice by dismissing the entire Vector skin when it's still somewhat in its infancy. Let's wait until some of the bugs are ironed on on enwiki before we make an actual decision. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Either way (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me. I don't intend on using it anyways, because I dislike using it (from experience at WN). James: what special features? I haven't seen any useful features in the new release. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah I say lets wait for the bugs to be worked out...its always hard to switch to something new. Its human nature to not want to. But sometimes it really is for the better. -DJSasso (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pragmatically, it might be best to try not to rustle any feathers over there, if that makes sense. Kansan (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-simple-proposal-DG SVG.svg -Proposed. File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-simple SVG.svg - Awful.

• And the logo is just awful. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  I have done a new version or proposal to the logo. The one at the left. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 15:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keeping Monobook might make Simple unique, but it would also mean it's harder to use for new users who are familiar with Vector on other projects. ...Aurora... (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

<-- They have halted the rollout of the new logo because of the communities concerns, we shuldn't design a new one until we know what it will look like ;) James (T C) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. :) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Varying page requests...

Hello all,

I just had a look at the current "page requrests". Those listed are almost exclusively bible/christianity related, and have been sitting there for quite some time. Shouldn't we vary the subjects a little more? --Eptalon (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. the Most wanted page has many bible related topics, and then it moves into wrestling related, and then a bunch of cities and the like. Is there a bot that can update this for us? It would seem impossible to do it all manually.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One was created yesterday. Most Wanted articles do traditionally take a while before creation. While I would like variety, we shouldn't have templates with redlinks, and the bible one does. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll create some of them. PiRSquared17 19:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the guideline of not featuring more than one article of the same subject on the page? I'm sure we agreed a while back that rather than just go from the top down we worked progressively down but only had one from each subject, if that makes sense... Goblin 21:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

A quick search found eptalon complaining about it for the past few years, but no discussion. I only checked the Wikipedia namespace for 'most wanted' and looked at the first 30 results. You can look somewhere else if you want. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it not on the Most Wanted talk? Might have been an IRC discussion on second thoughts... *Shrugs* - perhaps we should make the proposal and make it a guideline now? That way it's not picking people's 'favourites', but avoids topic-flooding? Goblin 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

Well, by doing that, we are avoiding the issue that Bible articles are the 'most wanted'. I like the system we have, but if turnover is apparently slowing because of it, we should try to compensate. While I don't have time right now, tomorrow I should have time to write one or two 4-5 liners on them (which would be a start). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really, and nor are Bible articles really the most wanted. Look at it this way: the articles are mass linked via a template on xyz pages, meaning they show up in the list and flood the top - perhaps removing *Actual* most wanted articles. Whilst all the articles are the same, it also stales creation, meaning that none of the most wanted (or otherwise) get created, and it gives off the idea that we are a Bible-o-pedia or something. We should be varying the topics - they will all be created in the end... and just because it's not on RC, doesn't mean they don't have to be created either! Goblin 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

ArbCom on Simple?

The dispute resolution appears very shoddy here right now. Is it possible we could set up a sort of Arbitration Committee for major disputes, or a Mediation commitee? Rin Tin Tin 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What sort of dispute resolution do you want? Doesn't the admin noticeboard suffice for the ones we have here? Do we really need more bureaucracy and drama here? Pmlineditor ∞ 10:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We have a small community. If we had an arbcom, probably all of the admins on ANI who comment regularly would already be enough for a 'arbitration committee', leaving only a few active editors. Hence we already have a good community as it is. We don't have over the top disputes everywhere that need intervention as we speak. Nifky^{^} 10:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would be just one more not really useful hat to reach for everyone. If we've problems, we can solve them without ArbCom. There is always a neutral editor/admin who can help to solve the problem. -Barras ^talk 10:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, having an ArbCom will only contribute to more and more editors being intimidated/put off by a "higher power". Chenzw  Talk  11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been routinely rejected in the past, mostly because we only have a small number of editors. Most everything if needed is usually taken care of here on this page or the AN page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the current number, but about half a year ago, there were between 30 and 40 "active" contributors. Roughly 90% of these were admins. In other words, there were less than 10 non-admin contributors then. Do you really think the effort is worthwhile setting up an arbCom, with rules, when it is very easy to find 2-3 uninvolved admins or crats to settle a dispute? --Eptalon (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are so many areas of this Wikipedia that are more deserving of attention than an Arbitration Committee. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. We had a massive discussion on this about a year ago and it was rejected. Regardless of admin numbers, a community this small should be able to solve disputes itself (And, indeed, we have a history of doing so) without introducing another 'tier' (Yes, people see Admins/Crats as 'tiers' here...) that is completely pointless, imo. Wikipedia:List of frequently denied proposals, anyone? Goblin 23:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Checkuser

I am going to take a wild guess that Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is the same as the Sockpuppet investigations at the English Wikipedia. I am just wondering if you get that many requests done here because I am pretty active there at the other site. wiooiw ^(talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We get a few now and then. Nothing compared to english wikipedia of course. Maybe a handful a month. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If a handful at all. Most CU things get handled automatically by the CUs without a request on-wiki. Our CUs are highly effective. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

reopen discussion

I propose that the the discussion here be re-opened here as this is a much more high traffic page. The discussion last time was closed prematurely (IMO) as the only two users that opposed were directly affected by it (a bias). Of the last 500 imports (quick scan, might be wrong), none of them were done by the two importers. Comments? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

especially now that crats actually have the ability to grant importer here. James (T C) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it sounds like a good idea to me. I don't think I would oppose though. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

yes we should reopen this. I was actually thinking about that duri g a recent request for importer rights. Would be good to set some standards for granting this tool. --Either way (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion and it seems like an interesting and reasonable proposal. I think it would be a good idea to reopen it. —Classical Esther^talk 04:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bug reports

Can I suggest that we either delete Wikipedia:Bug reports or drastically change it to direct people to Wikipedia:Simple talk? EhJJ^TALK 02:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not delete it, but leaving a note there that says "Bug reports should be made at Simple Talk" etc sounds fine. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well... What about creating a different page about how to report bugs, what are bugs, etc? Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 04:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just redirect the page here. We're not big enough that we warrant having stuff like that spread so thin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so, EVula. :) I personally feel sorry for the editor who created that article, because all the content would be erased....but perhaps you're right. I don't think I have any other objections. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 07:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just redirecting the page here wouldn't erase anything; the history would still be there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't think of that. Thank you very much. I assure you I really have no problems with redirecting it any more. I apologize for having such a blank mind. Warmly, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Importers

Friends,

Per the above suggestion, I've cleaned up the talk page at Wikipedia:Importers. Please take a look, and let us see if we can't work on this. Thank you for your time, Jon@talk:~$ 08:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion.

Hey guys, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles. Your input is welcomed!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Your idea was extremely clever and agreeable. Continue the smart work! Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request

Hollywood, Los Angeles --> Hollywood per recent move request at en:Talk:Hollywood. I had thought they were going to to move it to Hollywood, Los Angeles; as is now consistent with other LA neighborhoods here and on EN; but the consensus came out otherwise. Hollywood already redirects to Hollywood, Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrators and email

Wikipedia:Criteria for administratorship states that administrators need to provide an email address. This would seem to exclude some users who would make capable administrators but cannot become an administrator because either they do not have an email address or do not want to give it out. Therefore, I feel we should drop this requirement. Immunize (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Its a requirement because all administrators need to be able to be contacted off wiki for sensitive issues. There are millions of free email providers out there that allow you to have emails. Many administrators set up a wiki only email address to avoid such situations. And if you can access wikipedia you can certainly access a web based email provider. Also we have an administrator email list, that you don't have to join if you are an admin but its an extremely good idea that you do. So having an email address for this is of course necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye what DJ said is true. The other thing is that in general you don't NEED to give it out. The requirement is that you need to have an email address set up in your preferences (which no one can see) so that people can email you through Special:EmailUser. Sending an email through that system only releases your email if you reply back and I know on multiple occasions when an admin has either replied back on wiki or forwarded the email to another admin to help with when they didn't want to give out their email. James (T C) 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

<-Yes, what James said. All admins should have a private way of contacting them, and IMO all users should. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins are not required to have email unless they perform blocks. Personally, I have no issue with an admin using the mailing list as their address for this purpose. fr33kman 02:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Coord template display location

When the {{Coord}} template is used to display geographical coordinates with the parameter display=title, the coordinates are displayed at the level the article text starts. This overlays the output from infobox templates. See Hockenheimring and compare to en:Hockenheimring. It look find during edit preview because coordinates line up with the Preview statement. This happens in Opera, Chrome, and IE8. --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me in Firefox and IE8. So either someone already fixed it, or its due to your own resolution or some such on your computer. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I was running the beta version. Left beta, and the page looks fine. Where do I report this problem? Thanks --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing somewhere at the usability wiki, since they are the ones running the beta. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Works For me (Coolsway)[1]

PVGA: City of Manchester Stadium

Hi all. City of Manchester Stadium is currently up for proposal as a very good article at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles. It has been there since May 11 and has only received comments from one user (thanks, Meganmccarty!). Could some others take a look at the article? Right now it's missing 13 redlinks, which I hope to have finished by week's end, but otherwise, I think it is in very good condition as it is based on an English Wikipedia Featured Article. Any input would be appreciated. I just don't want to see the effort go to waste because of a lack of comments! Thanks! Either way (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed :) -Barras ^talk 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't resist, and left a few comment on the talk page; In short: some of the language chosen might not be the most suited to our audience. Other than that, article looks good. --Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied to both reviews. Thanks for the input to both! I hope to have the redlinks filled soon. Either way (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All the redlinks are done. The article is now awaiting further reviews. If you could comment at the talk page or at WP:PVGA, please do. Thanks! Either way (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic grammar

Have we totally given up on basic English grammar? When I see there are 173 references to trade unions I feel a mixture of fury and despair. Here goes: in English, nouns take plural forms, but adjectives do not. So we say "White swans". The same applies for those cases where the noun comes first and the adjectives after, such as trades union because trade is a noun and union an adjective. If "union" is used on its own as a substitute for the full term, then it is being used as a noun, and so takes a plural. Then "unions" is correct. Perhaps I should add that in "labor union", the U.S. version, labor does not take a plural because it is a collective noun. En passant, I notice the page Noun mistakes plural for collective. Collective nouns may only be used for groups.

I suspect that were we to have a purge on grammar (say a couple of weeks) we would find hundreds (thousands?) of cases of clearly mistaken grammar. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Er..."trade unions" is proper. The noun is union. The adjective is trade. It is a union. What kind of union is it? A trade union. Since "trade" defines what kind of union it is, "trade" is acting as an adjective. "Trade unions" means that there is more than one union. While I do think we have grammar issues, I think this is a completely wrong example to bring up. Either way (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Concise Oxford Dictionary p1478: "Trades Union Congress". However, it gives "trades union" as a British spelling, so perhaps trade unions is yet another example of American new spelling. There are other examples: Procurators fiscal (procurator is the noun). And I will think of others. Macdonald-ross (talk)

Sergeants General? PiRSquared17 21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"(NOTE: Although Trades Union Congress is the official name for the organisation, trade union is more common than trades union)" from the Dictionary of Law. Yes, there are a lot of examples out there, I just do not think this is one. Either way (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen "trades union" written in print, but I am familiar with the term "trade unions", so I can only assume that this is a difference between American and British usage. Kansan (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think it's just a common misconception, as we do it here too. I've never, ever seen trades union. In print it's usually trade unions. I am aware of this form with the noun first (Secretaries-General), but it seems to be somewhat deprecated in some circles. That said, I always interpreted "trade union" with "union" as the noun, with the plural meaning more than one union, as opposed to more than one trade- so I suppose "trade" is the adjective. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Before returning to industrial relations, I'd like to mention a few other cases. 'Court martial' takes the plural Courts martial; 'martial' is undoubtedly an adjective (eg martial arts). Plural of 'Lord Justice' is Lords Justices; here both words are nouns and both take plurals.
Now, I'll have to agree that it's not so obvious that 'union' is an adjective. It was introduced from French to middle English as an adjective (SOED II p2305), but it does seem to operate in the phrase as a substantive (= ~noun). However, the formal plural is quite clear: it is Trades union. Refs: Concise Oxford Dictionary, Shorter OED vol II, Fowler's Modern English Usage p658. And also trades-unionism, trades-unionist. We are so used to the normal adjective-first formation that we tend to add the plural to the second word in the rarer noun-first constructions. WP should always give weight to formal spelling, and acknowledge alternate usage if sufficiently frequent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is definitely a british english thing as in canadian english the proper spelling would be trade unions because the noun is union and the type of union is a trade union. Because there are other types of unions than trade unions. I can't say that I have ever seen in print or elsewhere it spelled the other way. The same goes for your example of Court martials. Martial is the noun and court is the type of martial. Its always in print as Court martials over here. Its probably due to examples like you are citing from the Oxford dictionary that we were not supposed to use the Oxford dictionary when I was in school many years ago. Because it was often incorrect for our version of the language. (I should note that it was okay to use the Canadian Oxford Dictionary which contained the regional corrections). I would also note, that wikipedia is supposed to use common use versions first and then note if there is a formal version, not the other way around as you are suggesting. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Footnote help

Hi. I just added some footnotes at User:Codedon/draft. As you see at the "notes" section, six of them are identical. I want to name them just like naming references so that I won't have the exact text for 6 ones. Thanks. Codedon (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To group them, put <ref group="Griff" name="ofwales"> after each note, and then in the notes section, put <references group="Griff" />. Griff and ofwales are just examples, and I can't guarantee the results, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's done. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Codedon (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

An easier way is to do <ref name="atlflames">whatever the ref is</ref> in the first instance and then anywhere in the page that you want to use the same reference you do <ref name="atlflames"/> and that is it. So you don't have to type the reference over and over and it only shows up once at the bottom with no additional code down there. And the name can be whatever you want. -DJSasso (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that only works for References, and not notes.. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

British Museum collaboration

Hi, I would like to draw everyone's attention to this event, offering a backstage tour of the British Museum for Wikipedians. I have to the organiser of the event, Liam Wyatt aka Witty Lama, who has agreed that the Simple English Wikipedia contribution to the collaboration could be an important part. He has suggested that, in return for a drive in all British Museum related articles (ie its exhibits, of which there are thousands of important archaelogical relics), he may talk about SEWP at the event, and generally promote our project. Hopefully this will entice users from other Wikis to come over here and help us out with this and all our other projects!

I know it might not be a lot, but considering the user base here, we could really do with some more user and I think this might help out. What do you guys think, is this a good idea? And more importantly would you be willing to help out? FSM ^Noodly? 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of exciting, but I don't get the "in return" part. What do you mean? And I wish Auckland would do something like that... :( {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant that if we do him a favour by improving the British Museum articles (as he is the Wikipedian in residence there) then he will help us out by generally promoting our project. And if this event is successful Wikimedia apparently has plans to do similar things in more places; so you might get something like this after all! FSM ^Noodly? 11:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a "more specific" list? - The British Museum has one of the largest artifact collections in the World. I think together with the museum of Modern Art in NY, and the Hermitage Museum in St.Petersburg, it is one of the largest museums whatsoever. Can we get a concrete list of Suggestions for articles to create or improve? --Eptalon (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess this would give a general idea of the most important articles... The event is this coming Friday so I can talk to the organisers about it in more detail then, and set up a project page or something. FSM ^Noodly? 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest to make Main Page shorter

I have posted my suggestion to make the Main Page shorter in Talk:Main Page: Is Main Page too long?. I think it is appropriate and should be considered. --Horus (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

really dumb question- image size in infoboxes.

User:Sonia/C major has a huge image in the infobox, and I don't know how to fix it. Can anyone help? Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I made a small change to the template. It should look fine now. If you follow the link, you can see what I changed and make it a different size (for all {{Infobox Scale}}). EhJJ^TALK 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki?

how do u apply this? --Technobeatz10 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Interwikis are (usually) links for foreign language versions of pages; most of the time, there's nothing the average editor needs to do about them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, say i made an article here and i was done with but need to link to wp. idk really sorry confusing you. --Technobeatz10 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I figured it out nice and thank you. --Technobeatz10 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

overload

of recent changes redirected articles. --Technobeatz10 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. People need to stop sweating over lots of recent changes spamming...we want the RC to be spammed...means we are growing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry kind mistake. --Technobeatz10 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:An English Wikipedian's guide

I felt it would be useful. It's very much a work in progress, and as I'm not entirely familiar with all the inner workings of Simple myself, could somebody check it over and add anything I've missed? Thanks, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

mw:Extension:VariablesExtension and mw:Extension:Loops

Cold we get mw:Extension:VariablesExtension and mw:Extension:Loops? πr² (talk • changes) 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you need it for? Remember we try to keep things as simple as possible here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing RfD

Can someone close Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/Kaioo? After I nominated the article for deletion, I found multiple sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template problem

I imported Template:Infobox protected area of Australia but there is a slight problem with it, see Snowy River National Park for an example. Can someone who understands templates have a look and see what is wrong? Thanks Peterdownunder (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed - Griffinofwales (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

City of Manchester Stadium: PVGA

Hi all...City of Manchester Stadium has been sitting at WP:PVGA without comment for a week now. Could I get some people to review it or "vote" on it so we can hopefully bring this to a conclusion soon? It's been up for almost a month with little attention at times. I would definitely like to see this pass soon. Thanks! Either way (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Voted. Good job BTW. :) --Ι-ση // _{ταlκ ραge}^ψ 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible project

Some of the articles need to use technical vocabulary. The result is that there is a frequent need to avoid these words somehow. I have found software called EHTip that provides "fly-over" dictionary support. It would require a fair amount of work to convert an existing dictionary file. (I've started with a German-English x English-German set.) However, the number of marginal vocabulary items may not be too great. I suspect that physics and other technical subjects may require the most help.

Is there some way that interested people could cooperate in rewriting the English-German file and make it an English-Simple English file? English Wikipedia has "projects," but I have not noticed any of them on this site. Patrick0Moran (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. Could you provide us with some examples that are currently being used (some of our editors are Germans so can review German examples), and could you outline how you see this being implemented here? Would it require modification of MediaWiki? fr33kman 03:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping with this, it sounds like a useful project. (There are wikiprojects on this wiki, but they're in userspace.) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not always right or needed to 'translate' all technical words. In science, mathematics and technology technical terms are there for a reason. After any process of simplification, a page must still give the reader an essentially correct account of whatever concept is under discussion. There is, of course, a delicate balance needed between the demands of the subject-matter and the capacity of the reader. The latter can only be guessed at. Usually the terms introduced in an article are explained in the article; the problem comes with terms explained in other articles which the reader may not have encountered. They can't all be explained every single time. It sounds as though your software would do something similar to our wikt. Are any of us able to make a comparison? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The software does not do anything to the Wikipedia article. It could be used by anybody who happens to be learning English and does not want to keep running to a separate dictionary while reading an article. Such a person could use the same software on the regular English Wikipedia, for that matter.

Such an approach can be useful in language learning. I have been working on the Quantum Mechanics article. Suppose somebody who is not already a physicist or a mathematician reads that article and comes to the part where Max Born realizes that Heisenberg's weird non-commutating formula is actually a description for how to write out a matrix multiplication. So the reader has to learn a new word -- along with many other new words. Maybe the first time s/he looks it up. The second time s/he just pauses the cursor over the word "matrix" and the explanation "defined grid for numbers" or something like that pops up. It may not be precise, but it is enough to remind the reader of what s/he looked up 20 minutes ago.

You can see the description of the software at: http://bender.fesb.hr/~robert/ehtip/

I had very little trouble to install it in my copy of Firefox. I also had very little trouble to modify the English-German/German-English files and give them a new title. But it would take a long time to do all of those words. (Some of them could easily be left out because they have Simple English equivalents that should be used in the articles anyway, and some of them we probably would never need to use.)

Basically, all that is involved is to change something such as:

nadir=Fußpunkt

to

nadir=lowest position in the sky

What is "wikt"??? I'll see about putting something into my user space. Patrick0Moran (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Wikt is short for the Simple English Wiktionary. :) I hope that helps. This does sound like a very interesting project. —Classical Esther^talk 23:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See User:Patrick0Moran/DictionaryProject and User:Patrick0Moran/DictionaryProject2 for the file. (I had to put it into two parts because it is too long.Patrick0Moran (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this? — μ 16:25, Wednesday June 9 2010 (UTC)

Dead linkPatrick0Moran (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of global rollback

Please discuss this in light of this incorrect use of global rollback by User:EdBever/nl:Overleg_gebruiker:EdBever. I agree it was not a good edit by the anon, but it was also not vandalism and should have been undone as a AGF edit rather than a rather rude use of rollback (which is only for definite vandalism). Thanks! fr33kman 07:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, fr33kman. I did notice that the IP had also put those links on other wikis. Some wikis may consider it spam though. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 07:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, and since when have we simply considered spam as vandalism and "rollback"ed? The editor may have very well meant to add the links as a good edit; albeit it an unneeded one. fr33kman 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call spam vandalism. I was just saying. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk/Changes)} 07:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you are buddy! :) Also, please note, I have not undone the rollback as I fully agree the edit is unneeded, but it should have been an undo, and not a rollback. Rollback says to a person that you are a vandal. I've just seen global rollbackers abuse it far too often. fr33kman 07:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I know I certainly consider spam vandalism. Vandalism is any disruptive edit. Spamming is disruptive. I wouldn't have hesitated to use rollback on this edit either. Spam is one of the worst kinds of vandalism because it masquerades as a legit edit. Had I been on, I would have done the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My point here is how do you know it's spam and not a good faith attempt to add a website related to the topic and perhaps valid? If doubt exists, undo should be used. At the time I saw that use of rollback, I was unaware of global contribs (and I'm still not convinced the global contribs are intended as spam/vandalism). I've seen more than a few times when I felt that a global rollbacker used it in an iffy situation. Also, just like we don't have global sysops here, why should we have global rollback. We have an active community on Simple. fr33kman 11:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And btw vandalism is when a person makes an edit and intends to harm wikipedia. fr33kman 11:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

15 editors is active? πr² (talk • changes) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We have more than 15 editors. fr33kman 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Right and I contend people that are spaming, are doing so knowing they shouldn't. Therefore they are intending to harm the wiki. This case, can't speak for others, is a clear case of spamming. I always check global contribs when people add ELs to other sites. And if it was a global rollbacker doing it, he probably already knew it was done on other sites. I don't have an issue with this action at all. As for why we allow global rollbackers, because we have a policy where anyone that has rollback at another WMF wiki can have it here automatically. It would be contradictory to allow that and then deny global rollbackers. We don't have the same policy for admins. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we just simply disagree! But hey, you've often said I am too soft! :) fr33kman 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

<-Global vandalism-fighters are often more heavy-handed when fighting vandalism. That's a culture which has to be accepted if you want their protection. They have to revert all the external link additions by one user, and that is very time-consuming to do using undo (especially if they do not understand English). #cvn-sw shows the RC of over 400 wikis which, needless to say, is a lot of changes. There is no logical conclusion to this thread, so let's just leave it at that. Griffinofwales (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem with Watching Pages

It has come to my attention that there are certain features of Wikipedia, specifically the "watch" option/tab at the top of each page, that I would like for Wikimedia to turn off. See this discussion for further details. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can not duplicate this issue you are having. Can anyone else? Essentially what TeleComNasSprVen is saying the issue is is that on some occasions clicking the "watch" tab will gave a drop-down "this page has been added to your watchlist" edit notice below the tab and on other occasions it takes him to a separate page saying this. For me, I only get this drop-down when clicking the tab. The only time I get sent to another page is if I click on a direct link to the watch command (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk&action=watch for example). Is anyone else having the problem that TeleCom is describing? Either way (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, strange, I've never had that problem that Telecom describes...I just get the drop-down edit notice that Either way described. —Classical Esther^talk 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I do. That's because when I use popups sometimes, to unwatch things, such as IP vandals that I warn. When I finish warning them, I forget to unwatch them and they are watched. Then, I put my mouse on the link to their name, and click the "un" part of "un|watch". It doesn't drop down when I click that. However, when I go to the page my self and click unwatch on the top, it drops down. :) Maybe TeleCom is using both popups and just clicking to watch and unwatch. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 00:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I often have this problem. Well, not really a problem, it's all the same to me since it still works. I have a lot of custom javascript on ENWP where it happens, both in my monobook.js page and in a few widgets I have. (I use Opera - widgets would be like add-ons for Firefox.) When things "work", I get the drop down notification. If something is broke and the javascript throws an error (or is disabled by the browser) I get the seperate page. Both will add the page to my watchlist, so I don't really care. :) Hope that helps! -Avicennasis @ 06:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So.......... you can fix it? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not really broken. It's doing what it is supposed to. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You can either disable javascript and always get the second page, or don't use any other javascript tools that might conflict and always get the drop down. As others have said, both ways still add the page to your watchlist, so nothing is really 'broke'. -Avicennasis @ 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This beta interface...

I like it... but can anyone confirm that it does break functionality on things like the user talk auto warn thing? Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See above (if that's what you mean). :P {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup

2010 FIFA World Cup (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

We're doing a terrible on the article. We didn't even have the standings update until I did it a few minutes ago, and France-Uruguay ended hours ago. We need a few people to volunteer to CLEAN UP the article and KEEP IT UPDATED, cuz honestly it's hash right now. Purplebackpack89 01:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} Lauryn Ashby (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I did for today's matches, Lauryn. It isn't exactly right to expect only one editor to do all the work on a high-profile page like that, especially if soccer isn't his forte Purplebackpack89 02:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC) beat the limeys!

$User:The\_Three\_Headed\_Knight+User:Nameless\_User=User:The\_Soccer\_Updater$ πr² (talk • changes) 03:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Left a message at his talk page Purplebackpack89 05:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC) beat the limeys!

Purpleback is not who you want to trust on soccer. Trust me. Purplebackpack89 16:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)beat the limeys!