Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 86

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Can we have an archival process there? Thanks, I-20the highway 21:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd prefer the Admin noticeboard were used, and not a subpage. Imports should be few in number. Each import in a section on its own on AN, and archival will work as well. --Eptalon (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archival will now work on AN/Imports. πr2 (talk • changes) 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Is there a need for records of import requests? sonia♫♪ 10:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think these should be done on individual admins talk pages. There is never a need to rush to get these done. Not to mention for the most part they shouldn't really be done anyways. People should just start from scratch. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is there an archivebot for Simple Talk?  Hazard-SJ Talk 16:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MiszaBot (talk · contribs). πr2 (talk • changes) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well can she please get to work?  Hazard-SJ Talk 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works on a last-edited basis. All the threads have been edited recently. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category duplication

I've discovered we've been running for over two years with a duplicating pair of categories: Category:Theater and Category:Theatre. Would a cat buff please merge them under one of the names? Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which category name is preferred? πr2 (talk • changes) 14:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theater. Theatre is for native English speakers. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't even close to true. Its spelled Theatre in both Canadian and British English...as well as possibly others. I say just merge it to whichever has the most articles in it. I can run a pass through fixing them this evening if no one else gets to it first. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Theatre page itself has BritE spelling; the word is from Greek Theatron via Old French. 'Theatre' spelling is used in various European languages. Mmmm... must put that Greek bit into the article... Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to that isn't "even close to true"? Here's some history from theatre. Theatre from the EnWiktionary: "The spelling theatre is the main spelling in Commonwealth English..."; Commonwealth English from the EnWikipedia page: "English is spoken as a first or second language in most of the Commonwealth... [The English language] is widely used as a lingua franca..."; Lingua franca from the EnWikipedia page: "is a language systematically used to communicate between persons not sharing a mother tongue, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both persons' mother tongues..." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The implication you make that Theater is for any language other than english. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that Theater seems the more prevalent and thus more appropriate category name. Theatre sounds too much like Old English. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin. You talk about how english is one of the most widely used languages (Commonwealth English being the most widely used of the english versions), yet you then say that you think the other seems to be more prevalent? -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough consensus that this page should be moved from userspace into WP: space? I would like for it to be a guideline. The page was started in Feb of 2009, and has been used in AN discussions for quite a while. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it: looks good to me. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to add more policies that don't really do anything but add bureaucratic wording to everything.... -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this is just some graffiti I wrote. If the community really decides we need such a poplicy, it should be reviewed and adaped accordingly. At the moment, though I am not sure we need one. --Eptalon (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline, not policy. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline is a low level policy. Leave it as an essay in userspace. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any ideas about how to improve the essay then? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Simple talk?

Hello all,

in recent days we have seen many discussions at Simple talk. Because it is a "high-volume" page, Enwp has several pages for the equivalent of Simple talk. Given the volume, I propose we do the same, we should create a separate page for "Discussions that may change the way this wikipedia works", and no longer have these on simple talk. What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple talk almost never gets above the 120k mark which is the point where articles should seriously consider being split. I see no reason to need to split the page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact looking back, it almost never gets above 50k or so. Only one a few occasions when something really big happens. And 50k is perched in ideal page size. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, there is alot of static here and it is difficult at a scan to separate what is what. Jon@talk:~$ 13:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this page is getting kinda cramped. There is a lot of current discussion on this page. However, I'm not sure what is best. Should we spread the volume over a few pages, meaning you'd have to watch more pages to take part in all discussion, or should be leave it as is and have to deal with it being cramped. I'm still undecided.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something to be aware of is that the amount on this page is currently alot more than normal. Going back to March the typical amount of stuff on this page is about a third to a half of what is on this page currently. There is always going to be times where this page does get high, but those are the exception not the rule. Personally I find having more pages to have to scan is more trouble than simply scanning the table of contents on one page... -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Discussions that may change the way this wikipedia works" is too vague. Do you mean policy changes? Chenzw  Talk  15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually hard to say, at this time. Basic idea was: Serious discussions, which may result in a change of eg. policies/guidelines go to a different page. Looking at Village Pump at enwp, what they term as Policy,Technical and Proposals would go to the newly created page; Idea tab and Miscellaneous would stay at ST. --Eptalon (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't necessary; besides, it just means more pages to watchlist and hassle with. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid duplicate pages

You can find thoughts on how to avoid duplicate pages on User:Macdonald-ross/How to. — This unsigned comment was added by Macdonald-ross (talk • changes) on 09:33, 13 June 2010

Second timestamp for archival purposes. -- Lauryn (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey guys. This is something that has been bugging me for a long time. The word disambiguation is NOT simple, yet it is used on many pages here on Simple Wiki. I would like to propose changing disambiguation to a simpler word. Unfortunately, I don't know any words that would be of use to change this to. Does anybody have ideas? Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fork? Jon@talk:~$ 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't think of anything myself, but of the options here "other pages" seems to be the best. If I look for Foo (bar), and get to Foo to see "...see Foo (disambiguation", I may not click on it because at first glance the word "disambiguation" does not appear to be anything to do with what I'm looking for (that is, if I don't know what it means). Foo (other pages) would address that suitably. sonia♫♪ 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict)  Doh! I was thinking the exact same thing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are brilliant. That works. sonia♫♪ 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works perfectly. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will do it. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I just finished writing some code to do it. πr2 (talk • changes) 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What template are you referring to? The term "(disambiguation)" is part of the page's name, like how Wikipedia: is a certain namespace. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that he is referring to {{disambig}}. πr2 (talk • changes) 14:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^Excellent idea. :) I agree "Other meanings" is much easier to understand than "disambiguation". —Clementina talk 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I think (other meanings) can be more confusing than disambiguation. Remember not all words have to be simple. Just as simple as they can be to get their message across. I say this because meaning isn't a simple word either and actually has a different meaning from disambiguation. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "meaning" might not be a simple word, but it's the simplest we've got. I think it's even simpler than disambiguation. However, if you have any suggestion, by all means, you're welcome to add to this thread. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Other uses" maybe? πr2 (talk • changes) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, and I didn't like it. "Meanings" is more accurate, and "uses" is more applicable at the Simple Wiktionary. You can't really use an idea, per se. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like it either. "Other uses" might confuse non-native English speakers ("other uses of keyboards?"). πr2 (talk • changes) 14:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that disambiguation doesn't mean "other uses" or "other meanings". It means "to make different". Using words that don't mean the same thing might confuse readers coming from another language where they use the local version of "disambiguation" -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is what I see. Disambiguous is "to remove ambiguity" (wikt.), ambiguity being "something liable to more than one interpretation, explanation or meaning"(wikt, emphasis mine). Then explain again how "other meanings", where "meanings" refers to the different ways something could be understood or interpreted, does not satisfactorily simplify "disambiguation". PrincessofLlyr talk 17:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and this could be my newbie-ness, but do we have a policy to make things as easy as possible for users coming from other language WP's (which is what I assume you mean)? Yes, that would be helpful, but the point here is simple English. "Disambiguation" is not simple. PrincessofLlyr talk 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right but the word whose definition you have quoted is disambiguous. That is a different word than disambiguation. Disambiguation is a action. Disambiguous is a state. Our wiki's goal is to help ESL (and children) individuals to learn english. Likely if they have made their way to our simple wiki they have used their own language wiki, certain terms are standard across all wikis (albeit in different languages). There is a point where we need to try and keep things both simple to use as well as simple in english. If you want to simplify it, you need to keep it along the lines of "removing ambiguity" which is what disambiguation is about. You can't do a double hop to use an alternate meaning of ambiguity. Basically it comes down to the point where, are you simplifying it too much. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to spend some time to find the correct word or phrase to use, and I agree that you can simplify to much. However I do think that we need to do away with disambiguation. In passing, I have spoken with non wikipedian native speakers of English who needed to get a dictionary as they didn't know what disambiguation was. This only makes me more certain that we need to find a better way to do this.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah by all means find a better term, I was just pointing out the one people latched onto probably wasn't the best solution. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't the best solution, do you have a better one in mind? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since disambiguation means "to make different", how about calling it "differences" instead of "disambiguation"?  Hazard-SJ Talk 05:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read back over this section; it means "to remove ambiguity." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me out with this article? I'm having trouble making it simpler. I tried copying it from the English Wikipedia. But that proved unsuccessful. So I did everything all over completely different from it. Now I need to translate it into simpler English. How do I do that? Tarek M. Elkattan (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Tarek M. Elkattan has been blocked as a sock. EhJJTALK 09:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can make sentences shorter. You can use simpler words. There is a readability tool, though some people do not find it very accurate. It may be of help for you.sorry, the tool is no longer available. I'll have a look at the article soon. Yottie =talk= 09:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of admins

I fail to see the issue. Jon@talk:~$ 06:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world all contributers who wished would be trusted enough to gain adminship and would be given it (automatically). James (T C) 06:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I view adminship as a set of tools, not a rank. Kansan (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I had this discussion with Fr33kman quite recently... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, and I believe that you did not. I never commented once during that "highjacking" of my talk page ;) fr33kman 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kansan. The admin bit is free and in unlimited supply. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Put differently, there are a few (less than 10) regular editors which do not have the flag yet..--Eptalon (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC

Purplebackpack Challenge Cup

It's still on! User:Purplebackpack89/Purplebackpack_Challenge_Cup. Sign up by the end of the week! Purplebackpack89 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State of the wiki

Every time I visit simple – once every few days or so – somebody new is blocked, somebody else is unblocked, some RfA is tanking, some AN thread is heating up, somebody called somebody a name, somebody baited somebody. Do I happen to consistently check in at bad times, or is this simply the new theme around here? I dare say we've become worse than enwiki in many ways. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New theme? I always figured this was pretty much how simple has been since I joined a couple years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ -- Lauryn Ashby (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly new to this Wiki, nor unique to English (I daresay that English WP's drama is far worse, and at least we don't have mediation cabals/arbcom/etc. to drag things out for periods of weeks/months). I actually think the state of this wiki is gradually improving, but that's the eternal optimist in me. Kansan (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^ Jon@talk:~$ 23:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been here that long, so I can't really comment on this wiki. I would note, however, that this project was almost subject to shutdown twice. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^^^. Also another fact: a request for a Simple English Wikinews was declined 2 times and I wish we had one. (I can start one.) I-20the highway 20:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you start one? πr2 (talk • changes) 01:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We actually can't start any more simple projects. I guess it's been decided that simple English isn't a real language, so they aren't opening any more.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, a simpleWN would not be a good idea. The viability of both Wikinews and the simple projects has been disputed; combining the two would be a can of worms I wouldn't touch with a bargepole for numerous reasons. sonia♫♪ 01:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uw merges and moves

I've noticed that a lot of User Warning (abbreviated uw-) templates are similar. Is there consensus for this proposal to make several merges/moves?

Thoughts? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I am unable to do the first move, can I request it from an admin? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "...and related templates" is the best name for a category. Perhaps just "user warning templates"? IPvandal is rather oddly categorised there. As for the rest, redirecting might work for some but for others there are subtle differences that would be lost. sonia♫♪ 10:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but then if we plan to include templates that don't have the uw- (User warning) prefix, it'd be less accurate to just say "User warning templates." That is, if we plan to include such templates like Template:IPvandal... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain these edits?

These edits. A user name was hidden for good-faith edits on one of my userspace subpages. Why? Purplebackpack89 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility restored, there's no reason to hide an IP address, at least not on these edits. — This unsigned comment was added by Eptalon (talk • changes).
Actually there are Eptalon, if someone edits logged out they can ask to have their IP hidden...You shouldn't have undone it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could be the IP of an editor and therefore qualifies for suppression. -Barras (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've oversighted it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So in short: These edits were done by an IP editor, but it was requested their IP be hidden.--Eptalon (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they were probably done by a named editor. I am guessing the same admin who hid them. He probably did them while accidentally logged out. Although it could have been a different editor who then asked him. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PBP there are generally good reasons such things are done, usually they are done so as not to bring attention to them, which you have now done by questioning them. Next time if you really need to know why something was done like this, ask the admin who did it privately instead of posting to a public forum. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed them per request. Nothing with any effect on the content of the page beyond that information was removed. Kansan (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do I find out which admin allowed the edits to be hidden? Purplebackpack89 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was me. Kansan (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have found out by looking at http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User%3APurplebackpack89%2FPurplebackpack+Challenge+Cup&year=&month=-1 πr2 (talk • changes) 20:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for future use, if you go to the history of a page, there is a button that says "See logs for this page" that allows you to see who has deleted what from a page.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Div classes

Hello. Do any of you know of a page to add new div classes? See this edit in which I tried out different div classes that didn't turn out the way I expected them to. I originally wanted a collapsible box. If anyone could help me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For it to work for all users, it would have to be placed at Mediawiki:Common.css. You can try things in your personal Monobook.css or Vector.css (depending on which skin your use) by clicking on My settings. EhJJTALK 09:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other ways to create a collapsible header like the examples I gave in the link above to User:Einsteinewton? Going to any of the Mediawiki places looks like a lot of work and time, since they're usually protected and contain complex wikicode that I'll have to do loopholes through. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't archive this section, MiszaBot. I'm still waiting for a response. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the bot is so that it does archive things people don't respond to. If you don't get a response its cause no one knows or cares. Please stop trying to circumvent the bot. -DJSasso (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do they not know or care? Maybe they just forgot about it and someone wants to remind them. And if I don't get a response, can you explain to me why "circumvent[ing] the bot" is not allowed? Could you also explain to me how to create one of the collapsible headers I mentioned above? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because threads that aren't being used clutter up this page. There is a reason we choose the time we did, it keeps the page clear of unnecessary threads. As for how to do it, I don't know, and I would wager most people on this wiki don't know. Your best bet is to research it and or ask the person who is using it how they did it. I do know collapsible boxes do work on the wiki. You probably need to use the navbox template. -DJSasso (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I imported everything from en:Mediawiki:Common.css and en:Mediawiki:Common.js onto my respective css and js skins, and it'd worked just fine. I'd advise doing the same (that is, copying and pasting the code from enWiki to the simpleWiki Common.css and Common.js here) to update our skins. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable media?


I just added a "movie" to the requests for deletion. Given Hollywood, and Bollywood, and a few other countries have movie industries that "mass-produce" movies, songs, and the like, I do have a very basic question:

  • What is it that makes such a movie (or album, or song) notable? - If I have enough money, it is probably no problem to pay people to write (hopefully positive) reviews of my production, yet very few people will think the movie is memorable.
  • If you had to name "notable" movies from 50 years ago, how many could you name? (10, 20, 50?) - How many of these would you likely be able to get if you walked into a store?

Opinions welcome (and no, this is not a new way of producing drama, or of letting people bang their heads together). This is about finding out what media content is notable, and what is not. --Eptalon (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting problem. It's a Wonderful Life was initially considered a box office flop! Grown Ups has grossed about $130 million, but is it notable? So entries would seem easy. Whether you liked Avatar or not, it was a ground-breaking movie. Being Universal Pictures' first 3-D animated movie, Despicable Me should be notable. And one other thing to consider, not all notable movies, songs, etc. are good or even generally accepted. --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ground-breaking movies are a must. Worry less about recent films. I would look for one ot two Encyclopedias of Film or Film History (or equivalent in other areas). That would be a sound guide to older films, and it gives one a ref to quote. Then there's big official awards, like Oscars. Encyclopedias are better, though, because they would cover non-US culture, like Russian, German, French, or Swedish films. Then you'ld need to pick a few from Bollywood. Chinese, Japanese? No idea! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old films, like classic movies about Dracula, are notable. The recent movie Inception may not be, however. It's better to stick with old films first, then discuss the newest ones later. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a much broader view of notability for movies. For most other subjects, coverage from an expert in a field constitutes notability. Would not Roger Ebert and other notable movie reviewers count as experts in the field of movies? I believe that if it's widely released and reviewed by these people, or if it's otherwise received significant coverage/become important (i.e. the movie "Fitna" was an international incident), it's notable. Kansan (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for contemporary movies, to me their notability is dependent on their international acclaim. Let's stick with George Lucas's Star Wars as opposed to getting worked up on not-as-notable The Bourne Identity. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that those are the articles that we should be focusing on and writing. (I'm not really interested in movies, so it's not my area of expertise), but for those who are, I think those movies with a strong cultural impact or news coverage like Star Wars, Psycho, Gone With the Wind or even Borat should be preferred. If other people choose to write articles about movies such as the Bourne Identity, I'm not for deleting them. Kansan (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As always people should write about what they are interested in, if its notable its notable, clearly alot of the examples above are notable. This goes for any subject. We can't make people write about what we want or people won't write. We need to stop suggesting this so often. It seems to come up every couple months about one subject or another. And if you truely want to know what counts as notable then Wikipedia:Notability (films) tells you per our policy that if we lack a policy we use en's and I don't think there is any reason to differ from theirs in this case. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want clear notability guideline, here are three ways to tell if a film is definitely notable. Anything else is open to debate:

  1. Gross of a certain amount or more, inflation-adjusted (I'd say $100-$150 million in 2009 dollars)
  2. (Academy) Award-winning
  3. Part of the National Film Registry; or the equivalent in another country

Basically a simplified version of the film notability guidelines DJ cites above (though that also notes anything that passes general would most likely pass the film notability as well). Most of the films you've bantered about meet at least two of these. This topic has gained newfound interest due to the nomination of Epic Movie as an AFD; it meets none of them Purplebackpack89 04:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en:Notability (films) uses the phrase "at least five years after initial release" several times in its 'General principles/historically notable' section. I suggest we remember that phrase. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But on the other hand, you can agree that Avatar is notable Purplebackpack89 14:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about Rambo (1982 or '83), Showgirls (1996), or Gremlins (second half '80ish)?--Eptalon (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo and Gremlins meet #1, and Showgirls meets none of them (unless you count winning Golden Raspberry Awards as award-winning (I was thinking more on the lines of Oscars, Golden Globes, Pommes d'Or, &c) Purplebackpack89 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Clear Notability Guidelines for Movies:"
  1. I don't like numbers.
  2. Are the Academy awards themselves notable to this wikipedia?
  3. (I fixed your link) Is the National Film Registry notable?
And I don't consider any of those movies notable. I've never even heard of them (except for Avatar). The only time I believe some film is notable is when it attains a legendary status or international acclaim such as George Lucas's Star Wars, as pointed in my example(s) above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to browse WP:GNG where all that is required to be notable is that its been written about in multiple independant sources. There is no mention anywhere that something needs to be legendary. We are aiming for the sum of all knowledge, not the sum of legenday knowledge. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNG cites "reliable sources" and "significant coverage" which seem like rather arbitrary ideas. And I see an "encyclopedia" not a "compendium of human knowledge". As to notability, let's not lose focus on old films (like those of WWII) and then once we're done with those, perhaps more modern films can be discussed in a greater light. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources sums up what reliable sources are. Significant coverage means the article is about the subject itself and not just a passing mention. As for compendium of human knowlege, that is the stated goal of this encyclopedia. I don't have the quote handy, but that is what the goal of the WMF is. As for the rest of your comment, remember we are volunteers, people write about what they want to write about (within the notability guidelines) or they don't tend to write at all. No one wants to write about stuff they aren't interested in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Reliable sources arbitrary? Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not notable, nor does not liking numbers mean that a criterion should be discounted. And the Acamedy Awards and National Film Registry are clearly both notable, here, there or anywhere (the National Film Registry contains a lot of "old films", including many that were historically significant though not box office smashes)Purplebackpack89 18:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "reliable" is relatively ambiguous, and therefore arbitrary. But you're right, just because I haven't heard of something does not mean that whatever it is is not notable. The numbers that you picked out, however, seem rather arbitrary in themselves, and makes it seem as if this wiki is promoting or advertising films with a lot of money behind them, which is more or less playing politics. What I'm trying to get at is that the inclusion of 1 has a negative connotation that films are paying to get their names onto this wiki. If I come up a little blunt, I apologize. I don't, however, see this so-called "clear" notability regarding Academy Awards and the National Film Registry as obvious as you might believe. Look, instead of applying a clear guideline, full of numbers and bureaucracy, let's let consensus take over. That is the best policy. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising budget doesn't equal movie revenue. If a film grosses $100 million, it means 10-15 million people voted with their feet for that movie Purplebackpack89 05:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, en WP's standards seem to be "any movie that's widely released", and I see no reason not to do the same. Kansan (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about "any movie with a large cultural impact?" The culture impact seems more important to me. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the National Film Registry list criteria is for. The National Film Registry is for "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films" from America. We should probably use similar lists for films from India, Germany, and France, if they exist Purplebackpack89 14:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What bearing does #1 or #2 have on cultural impact then? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None, but that beside the point. We should also include films that are good (#2) and well-watched (#1), in addition to being culturally significant (#3). That's why EN has even more criteria than we do, because a film being good or well-watched is important. And from a navigational standpoint, people are more likely to be looking for articles on #1 and #2 than #3. Not to mentioned the fact that #2 (and #3) is ripped directly from EN's films notablity, and #1 is very similar to it (a little stricter, as EN's allows films that were in many theaters but still didn't gross well). Purplebackpack89 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Good"? What's your definition of a "good" film: something that has multiple awards? "Well-watched" does not necessarily mean notability. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notices about blocked/new/IP users commenting on discussions

Anybody can make those notices, right? (so that bureaucrats and mops know that when closing a discussion; often blocked, new or IP users' votes are disqualifed). And that doesn't violate any policy, right? 'Cuz when I noted here that the nominator had been blocked, somebody threw a couple English essays at me (NOSPADE and ADHOM). Those don't really apply in this case, right? Purplebackpack89 15:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you shouldn't post such notices, as they can be insulting. A person's state is irrelevant to the discussion. The only time it is relevant is when the user's account was created after the start of a discussion, in which case they aren't eligible to !vote and even that only pertains to RfXes. Most 'Crats will look for these things when closing, so posting it really has no benefits and can be inflammatory or scare users away in the case o new users. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...You didn't address the issue of blocked users, which was the issue in this case Purplebackpack89 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A blocked user has no bearing on a deletion discussion. Any user can nom articles for deletion as long as the nom is in good faith. I see no evidence that this nom was in bad faith. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users can not edit the wiki, so revert the edit. Jon@talk:~$ 16:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user was not blocked when he made the RFD. Basically, my opinion is that any WMF-wide editor can show up and take part in anything (except a RFP election that began before they got here). Simple WP welcomes anyone, including anons to take a full and active part. Users who are blocked and bypass the block to partake should have their edits reverted. Those who are blocked after they take part should have their opinion listened to. I would be upset if a closing crat decided that a user's opinion was worthless just because they had been blocked for something after they expressed it. fr33kman 18:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* Dragging me and our conversation out to Simple Talk for everybody to see. I was going to leave the matter alone if you didn't get the point, but...
Anyway, if you've actually read the ADHOM page, which is covered under Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, emphasis on avoid, this is one of the arguments you should not make: "Keep, nominator is a banned user trying to destroy Wikipedia", which is the argument you seem to be aiming for. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have been trying to remain quiet hoping you two would get the hint by now, but both of you stop picking at each other and bickering. I want both of you to avoid each other where possible. It's starting to get a bit rediculous where each of you is trying to outdo the other with trying to make each other look bad. Just plain stop. It's not helpful and its a waste of everyones time. Ignore each other. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an IP editor, but not a blocked one. I thought that IPs could contribute to discussions by making comments, but they were not allowed to vote in requests for permissions, deletion and similar things. (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any user can comment on any discussion. For elections (admin, crat, checkuser, oversighter), only named editors can vote; and blocked editors will have trouble editing the page. The person being elected cannot vote in their election, but can comment. Votes of editors who were blocked after they voted (and supposing they joined before the election started) are legal votes. In such elections, unnamed editors cannot vote, but they can comment.The crats closing such discussions will decide what votes are taken into account. It might well be that a comment of an unnamed editor decides the outcome of such an election. Also note that blocking an editor is not punishment, it is simply a way of protecting the wiki. --Eptalon (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser

Do I have to make the request for registration on enwp?  Hazard-SJ Talk 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated: Sorry all for crapflooding just now. sonia♫♪ 09:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they weren't minor, it wouldn't have been so.  Hazard-SJ Talk 09:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, lolwut. I'm pretty sure that most of our iw bots etc have all their edits checked as minor, and they don't show up. Rollbacks do, though. I was just running the non-flood-compatible version I think. sonia♫♪ 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators have the ability to hide rollbacks from recent changes. To do this, add &bot=1 to the end of the url used to access a user's contributions. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=SomePersistentVandal&bot=1. All minor edits are shown on Recent changes by default, the bot edits are not. Hope that helps. -Avicennasis @ 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This continues ad nauseum. No administrator has unblocked, and it seems unlikely that a consensus for unblocking will occur. Jon@talk:~$ 17:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoot's reply

The outcome of this discussion will not change. Let's please move on. Hoots will stay blocked. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

User Hoots (plus a few of his other accounts) have been blocked indefinitely, and as is apparent above, there is currently no consensus as to unblocking him. This post is merelely about the indefinitely. In my opinion, Indefinite blocks are useless. We do not know who will be around in two years time, the people who currently support or oppose the block might not, the admins who enacted the block might not. For this reason, the block should imo be changed to either a six-month, or a one-year block, to be reviewed when it runs out. Open for comments. (When commenting, please keep in mind that we already spent time to find out that we cannot agree on an unblock, at this time. This will likely not have changed in the last week) --Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The historical definition applies here. In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". I think this is the case at this time. Jon@talk:~$ 11:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The indefinite block is there to prevent the block from expiring when the community does not want it to. Of course, I am of the opinion that the blocked user can appeal the ban (unless the current community does not want the user to appeal while it is here), with the results subject to the community's consensus at the time of the appeal. Chenzw  Talk  11:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the point. The point is that the communtity that decided on the ban may no longer exist in six months to a year. The community that exists then will have to implicitely bear the ban, and may not even be aware of it. Since I do not know whether I will be around then, the only reliable way of imposing a review of the ban is to use a block that times out. This will force the new community to review the ban. If it does not re-block the editor in question, it can not support the community ban. It is therefore only fair that the editor is unblocked at that time. The new commiunity can also review the block then, and decide that the editor should stay blocked, in which case, it re-issues a block with another term. --Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]