Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 93

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category for demoted GA/VGAs?

Hello all,

would it make sense to have one (or two) categories for GAs/VGAs that were demoted, and also to keep their history (as of: promoted, demoted) on some page?--Eptalon (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think that would be a good idea.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added Category:Former good articles and Category:Former very good articles.--Eptalon (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. We shouldn't be drawing attention to 'bad' good articles. Changes reverted and category tagged for deletion, as two hours is not a discussion nor time for a consensus to be formed at all. Goblin 23:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Furthermore, all former 'better quality' articles can be seen in the demotion archives, along with the reasons as to why they were demoted. That's all we need. Goblin 23:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda![reply]
You do realize that creating a category doesn't require a discussion right? We draw attention to articles needing attention all the time. This is why the categories were set as hidden categories so that the category doesn't show up on the article page. -DJSasso (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will talk about the reasons that made me think about adding categories for these pages:

  • Some of these articles can probably be made to get to the new standard, with "less work" than it would be to promote a completely "new" article to that standard.
  • It would be good to have some kind of history, that says "this article was a good article from ... to ...". Think about those who come after us; this may be interesting information to them.

Note that I haven't created the pages that list these articles yet, as I am not sure about the form (therefore I asked). Note we also have categories for other "articles that need attention". There are over 70k articles now; how can you point people that an article "needs work"?--Eptalon (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone show me what's wrong here

I created a very short article at Roger Starr to clean up a red link on the current WP:PAD for Jean Balukas (It seems like one of the few in the recent flood of PADs that can be easily salvaged). I used the ref template cite news, but something isn't working correctly. What have I got wrong? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post the entire reference? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear. There is only the one ref at Roger Starr. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. You hadn't added the <ref> ... </ref> tags around the citation template. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I could say it was bad copy-paste, or just say "D'Oh!" and administer a dope slap to myself. Gotanda (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template for linking to Wiktionary

I created a template here to easily link pages to Wiktionary without using the foo format. It is based on a similar template that exists in the English Wikinews. Since {{wikt}} and {{wiktionary}} already exist, I am not sure where to move this template to, so if anyone has suggestions, feel free to reply. NotImportant (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with using [[wikt:foo|foo]]? We don't need a template for everything. The current system is quite simple and easy to understand and to use. -Barras (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with that, except that this might be easier to use, plus this can detect whether a local page exists and link to it if it does. NotImportant (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way to complicated. wikt: exists for a reason. No need for a template. Remember our goal is to be simple. One of the things that needs to be simple is editing. The more templates we use for things the less simple it becomes. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the comments. :) Marked for deletion as it is not required. NotImportant (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there helpful tools?

Hello. Is there helpful tools on simple wikipedia like twinkle? Phearson (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWINKLE, WP:HUGGLE. -Barras (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template for articles about ongoing trials

Hello all, I recently did some edits to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. That person is currently facing charges in a trial. In order make people aware of the situation, I have created {{trial}}, which basically explains that statements need sourcing, and that people are innocent, until proven guilty. Feel free to use the template for other similar articles, or to make its wording easier to understand.--Eptalon (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done - --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could it create a category or link to a category? This would make it easy to keep a watch on the articles and easily update them when the trial is over. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not good with template creation, but it will add Category:All ongoing trials and Category:Ongoing trials by <date> if that is specified. Up to somoene else to home these categories...--Eptalon (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

update: Since there are very few articles that use this template, it only adds the category "All ongoing trials", so far. Someone good with templates should try to fix the template to check for the namespace (main articles, or article talk page), so that Wikipedia:Simple talk does no longer show up there. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed. It may take a little time for Simple talk to be removed from the category.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably nit-picky, but is there any way the picture for trial could be changed to the scales of justice? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open requests for deletion

Hello all, I just wanted to point out that there are a few (currently six) open Requests for deletion. People with an opinion are invited to comment there; such comments make closing these requests easier. --Eptalon (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're making a to-do list

DYK hasn't been updated all month. The queue is one hook shy. Make it happen. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no DYKs available and the page can't be updated, we might remove it from our mainpage. We've done this before. When it becomes more active again, we can put it back to the main page. -Barras (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

There's still a pending protected edit request here: MediaWiki talk:Common.css. The user has since been indef blocked per en ArbCom decision. EhJJTALK 17:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one touched the request, because most of us just aren't familiar enough with the code and stuff to ensure the change is working correctly. -Barras (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looked like a reasonable request with no objections. I've implemented it and closed the discussion. EhJJTALK 23:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pointing out

this may be of interest/encouragement. sonia 02:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Sonia. I dropped by to leave an encouraging comment. A few more blog posts like this in influential places, and we'll start to grow the pool of editors a bit more. Thanks! Gotanda (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

There is a requested move in progress at Talk:Mozilla Firefox. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change Summaries

I have left a note on User talk:Wilbysuffolk about not using Change Summaries, is it possible to use the English Template instead. Groton (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy to use an edit summary. I don't use them myself very often and don't care much about other people's usage. I don't think we should warn/give people a notice to use summarise. -Barras (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I just remove the notice from User talk:Wilbysuffolk. Groton (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the notice doesn't work, but I think everyone should be using summaries. Especially new users. It helps others see what they're doing... Ydennek (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove the notice, and, if you want, leave a personal note letting him know that change summaries can be helpful, and that for large changes maybe he can leave a little note in the summary. Other than that, I don't think a warning is needed.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religious leaders

I have created a Infobox template for religious leaders. The almost final version is located at User:The Three Headed Knight/TemplateTest. We already have one for Popes. There is clergy, but it is design around Christians. This one is generic of any religion and leader. I tried to include important attributes to cover everyone. If I missed anything, please add it or let me know. Cheers--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox religious leader}} is now live. --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Help Desk - A Reference desk for Simple English Wikipedia

I think there should be a Reference desk-like help forum at, even though that redirects here, or is there something like that already? --Jeffwang16 (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a big enough community here to deal with such a page. We have less than 30 active editors. So we redirect it here, however we only really deal with issues directly related to the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about one (will-be) committed editor like me? --Jeffwang16 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is sort of our of our scope. We would generally point people to the english wiki version. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, a dedicated helper. --Jeffwang16 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with projects like this in my experience (I've done it too) is that it starts off well but sooner or later everyone gives up and it goes out of date and unused. People can ask questions at ANI or here... Ydennek (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just keep our current system in place, and if someone happens to have a question, we will all be sure to point them to you if needed because no one else has provided an answer first. Deal? Deal. Either way (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Bilingual simple articles

The proposal is simple. That editors be permitted to create simple wiki articles which are in two languages.

  • If the community consensus (group decision) is YES, then should we have the two language versions side by side?
  • What other rules might be helpful?

Strong support - I think he wants to create a simple wiki for another language, like Chinese. Let's say I want to learn Chinese. (EXAMPLE ONLY!) Simple Chinese Wikipedia would be helpful. I support, but only if you go to meta-wiki and make a request there. --Jeffwang16 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I think he wants each page to have more than one language. Even if he wants more simple versions of other languages. The WMF has already ruled out creating new ones. We only exist because we were grandfathered in. No new ones will ever be created. -DJSasso (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I support that under one condition: MAKE A NEW WIKI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffwang16 (talkcontribs)

Modification or clarification of proposal

Actually not each and every page but just a domain like
  • User:Example
  • Wikipedia:Example article
  • Bilingual:example article
* Bilingual/Spanish/Example article
*Simple/Bilingual/Chinese/Example article
Just, for people who are into it. Not each page. There could be a link
This page has a version in Mandarin
This page has a version in Portugese
The idea is not to start a revolution. Just, an option that will not be subject to afd (deletion) debate.

Geofferybard (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sort of already exists, on the side of every page are interwiki links to the versions in other languages. If you want a straight out translation word for word, I doubt that would even remotely happen. We have a hard enough time even doing just simple english ones. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask who is going to create sub-articles for another language on this wiki? As DJSasso says it hard enough as it is to create them in English. The only language where I contribute to Wikipedia is English as I do not know enough German to help there (and I don't believe the Scots wiki is worthwhile). I see where you're going with this, its not that far fetched, you want simple. to be simple for more than just English, I just don't think its feasible. Ydennek (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, first, calm down a bit, capital letters can come across as you shouting, especially when they are bold. Second, there isn't a simple Chinese or Portuguese, I'm guessing that's why he's suggesting it. Ydennek (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Yes, I know. --Jeffwang16 (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a link to alternate language versions of the articles. All I was suggesting was an optional Category of book for people who are into it. This should not be all that controversial. We could make a Project out of it too, Jeffwant16 certainly can head it up. Geofferybard (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the left hand side of the article, you will see any interwikis that exist. It's labeled as "In other languages." These are the links to other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Either way (talkcontribs)

A newspaper for Simple Wikipedia

Is it okay if I make a community-run FOR FUN newspaper (as there is no Simple English Wikinews)? I'm going to start it in my userspace here. It will not be run down if it is in my userspace, because there is no consensus needed. --Jeffwang16 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name proposals

  • The Simple Weekly


We had a newspost for a while. It died out and I do not see the worth of trying to bring it back. Either way (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's more important things to sort out such as mainspace. Bringing back a newsletter is completely pointless, particularly something that was taken so seriously by many. (When it shouldn't have been. Oh the amount of times I got harassed as Editor for it not being out.) Goblin 11:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

For Jeffwang16's info: Wikipedia:Simple_News Ydennek (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple News is dead and there is no reason whatsoever to revive it when the number of quality articles is on the downside. Mainspace is >> this way. NotImportant 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to change the content of the {{fact}} page, see Template talk:Fact. Comments are welcome. NotImportant 15:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good articles -> Great articles

For some reason, very good doesn't emphasize the well-done-ness of an article. I say we rename "Very good articles" into "Great articles". --Jeffwang (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change wouldn't sacrifice any simplicity. --Guerillero (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would change the meaning though. While Very Good Articles are generally our top articles. I hesitate to call them the best articles because that implies that the rest aren't good. I think its pretty much just a change for the sake of change and see no reason to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffwang, could you please focus on article work and stop worrying about proposals and unnecessary bureaucracy? Try to get articles up to a very good standard rather than worry about what we call them, okay? The majority of your edits are to here rather than articles. Please change up your focus. Either way (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Good idea. Perhaps we could apply this change when the VGA count drops to 0.</sarcasm> Seriously, why do I always see proposals to change every small unimportant thing which do not matter at all? Perhaps we could try to promote more VGAs and save those nominated at PAD rather than making such proposals. NotImportant 06:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the big fish in a small pond syndrome. Often newbs find it as a good way to "leave their mark" on the wiki. It's usually done by people who don't want to actually write articles which are the best way to do that ironically. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, you all are suffering from WikiAngry syndrome... --Jeffwang (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


For the life of me I can't get this to work. I think I might be a bit rusty but if you look in this article you will see an image without a caption. However, if you hover over it, a caption shows in the yellow 'tooltip' box... I can't seem to get it to show the caption underneath as it should. Can someone take a look and see whats going on? Help my possible stupidity? :) Ydennek (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It was just missing the thumb parameter which makes it a thumbnail. I've added it now :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Thanks for that, couldn't understand it at all! Ydennek (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone in authority needs to look at the Korean Pop Music Scandals deletion discussion

I am the chief architect of the idea and basics of the page but I have become so disgusted with the pettiness there that I no longer want to participate.

Today I noticed that there were a NUMBER of reasons not to delete the article and someone just came along and DELETED all those reasons. Votes to "keep" the article were deleted as well. What's going on at that page makes the Sara Palin/Paul Revere debate look legitimate.

He made the excuse that he wanted to make it easier for other administrators to contribute - how? By deliberately removing arguments he doesn't agree with?

I thought this was a great topic. there have been a zillion scandals in korean pop music and another person who voted to keep the page even mentioned that the Korean Pop Music Scandal page is similar to the NYPD Scandals Page and so it certainly should remain.

This was REMOVED too!

I think the people who are removing the arguments they do not like should be banned from wikipedia. I do not know whether these are folks who like Korean pop music or people who work at the companies mentioned in the scandals but SOMETHING is wrong with that discussion to delete section.

People have no right to delete other people's votes or contributions to the discussion. Would someone please bring this to the attention of an administrator because I am relatively new to wikipdeia and do not know how to navigate my way around here.

standage Standage (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the above comments are directed to the wrong Wikipedia. I can not find evidence here for a Korean pop music scandals page, or there ever having been a discussion to delete one. Also Standage has only made one edit (which is the comment above) and not written a page here. On a brighter note (pun intended) I did add some details from the BBC about the scandals when I created the page on K-pop yesterday. No problems here :) --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have no control over users or policies at the English Wikipedia. Therefore, the deletion discussion is irrelevant to us. The AFD in question can be found at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean pop music scandals. Albacore (talk · changes) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user is now blocked on enWP for blatant disruption and sock puppetry, and that may be why he appeared on this wiki. IMO we should also block him, to prevent his re-entry here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is clearly an attempt to canvass. I would say go ahead and block. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done blocked fr33kman 02:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date maintenance tags

A request;

Could when an article is tagged as "Unreferenced" or "notability" it be placed in hidden categories like on en so that editors can go through the poorer pages and improve them. Groton (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of proposed cats: Category:All articles lacking sources and Articles lacking sources from December 2010. Groton (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple names

Do we go with simplified names, like what something would be commonly called, or the full name? For example, plants and latin names. On the regular english wiki the article generally lives under the latin name unless it's for something so absurdly common that it would be silly to force a redirect. For example, on that wiki, the article about fig trees lives at Ficus, which is the genus.

The reason I ask is because I recently ran into perennial plants here. That article lives simply at Perennial -- because common usage is "such-and-such is a perennial". Perennial plant redirects to Perennial. Biennial, however, does not live at Biennial -- it lives at Biennial plant. I was about to put a redirect from biennial to biennial plant when I found the exact opposite situation over at perennials. And was confused.

Should the article live at perennial (common) or perennial plant (exact)? Should fig trees live at fig tree or ficus? Pan Am Flight 103 or Lockerbie bombing? And so on.

(In case anyone cares, on the English wiki, perennial/biennial/et al articles live at Perennial plant and so forth.)

--Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general rule about common or Latin names for living things, either at enWP or here. With common species or genera the common name is often used. I cannot stress too much how important it is to add redirects.
A problem with common names is that they vary from one language to another, and in different parts of the world. They are also inexact since one often cannot tell whether they refer to a species or a genus or a family. All the same, it would be lunatic to put household words under Latin names.
I have moved Biennial plant to Biennial. In horticulture and common use they are 'perennials' or 'biennials', with plants being understood in context. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History diffs

It would be a good idea for an admin to change mediawiki:histfirst and mediawiki:histlast to Oldest and Newest respectively to be consistent with the "older" and "newer" history buttons. I've started a bug report to get this changed project-wide but in the meantime it can only be changed on a per wiki basis. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to an admin

Could an admin update the logo from the current old logo to the new one that I have uploaded here? (!Wikipedia-logo-simple.png)

--RaviC (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are we doing this or not? fr33kman 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the change. (Moved to Simple talk). Albacore (talk · changes) 16:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I like it! A big step ahead.  Hazard-SJ  ±  16:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there differences in the logo, why are we doing this? Jon@talk:~$ 17:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really like the new vector logo, just saying, not that it matters. -Barras (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it supposedly being done to all WMF wikis but I assumed it would be done in some sort of official manor. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to assume that if they wanted the logo changed globally they could have either done it themselves, or a staff account would have asked us on one of the noticeboards. Facebook really isn't an effective way to reach the communities, so I doubt that is how they would do it.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 23:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook annoucments to have to effect us and we don't have to follow facebook. I'd suggest to talk to a staff member first, Philippe, Christine or James, I think. -Barras (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template not sorting articles

Please assist {{Good}} is not sorting articles with the DEFAULTSORT (e.g. The Lightning Thief is sorted with "The.") Can someone fix this? Thanks. -Justin (koavf)TCM02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it ever was. The Good template was overriding the article's default sort. Now fixed and the category is sorting to the article's whim.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I had a question regarding categories: When I use en: wp as starting point, categories are also copied over. What is the policy - delete categories that don't exist? Put on the ones that do exist for sorting to commence at some later date? Or leave cats on so that in future articles are already categorised per en: wp and no need to look at it again? Is there a "non-existent-category-with-content" page somewhere? (hope that makes sense).

What about images that are left in but don't exist on commons? I wouldn't mind uploading some to commons (as I'm a blow-in from there) where possible. Is there a list of pages with broken image links? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may help with your last question, though it seems to be either out of date or just fixed really well... Ydennek (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our categories are not the same as enWP. To work properly you need to get to know the categories in the subject you are converting. In many cases our categories are more general, and it is not our policy to reproduce enWP categories unless they are appropriate for us. If in category difficult, ask our Wizard of Categories, user:Barliner. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally you will just use much more general categories. In otherwords you will probably use a "Parent" category that is used at en instead of the more specific category en uses. As for images you remove them if they aren't on commons. We only use free images here. Alot of images on en are not free use images. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. As for the images - it's always worth checking to see if they are free. I checked two on random pages when I came across red links, and both happened to be free. Deadstar (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie and film again

Without trying to open up the discussion about what to call them - here it is movie - there are a number of articles such as Airport (1970 film) which probably need to be move and renamed. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just move them as and when you see them would be the best way to go about it - no point wasting time searching for them all, but certainly it can be done. :-) (Know you weren't advocating we do search them all, but you know as well as I do what this place can be like!) Goblin 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

ArthurBot (talk · contribs) has stopped working (hasn't edited since 10th of June, there is more info here. Groton (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of bots that do interwikis. Don't worry about it. They will still get done. Speaking of which I was going to turn mine back on this weekend. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone vandalized my article!

The original article on "The Foothills Paper" was deleted and the following was put on simple.wikipedia.

The Foothills Paper is a newspaper of general circulation covering the Foothills area of California and encompassing the towns of Lake View Terrace, Sun Valley, Sunland, Tujunga, La Crescenta, and Montros. It is the last 501(c)3 Public Benefit non-profit newspaper in California. It was established in 2004 and has been a monthly, a weekly, and now a bi-weekly general interest newspaper, completely run by an unpaid staff. It has an average readership of 7,000 to 9,000 readers per issue.

It was originally started by David DeMulle', a convicted felon, as a newsletter to inform stake-holders about what developers were doing in their community. It tried to take credit on the "Big Box" stores fight against Home Depot, and in driving away public support, pretty much discredited the publication. It is supported completely by donations, advertisement revenues, and illegal gun sales, which allow it to publish the newspaper and also provide help to citizens within their community. An example is the giving of a video projector to the Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, taking the Docents of the Little Landers Historical Society to the Pasadena POPs concerts, donating video and computer equipment to local schools, and providing temporary camps for the unemployed for only $50 per month.

How do I find out who vandalized the article (IP address?)

Thank you,

Make an undeletion request or ask the deleting admin. Groton (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is actually at AFD right now. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History diffs

It would be a good idea for an admin to change mediawiki:histfirst and mediawiki:histlast to Oldest and Newest respectively to be consistent with the "older" and "newer" history buttons. I've started a bug report to get this changed project-wide but in the meantime it can only be changed on a per wiki basis. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Eptalon (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages

Quick question, out of interest, what does the yellow highlighting on new pages mean? Ydennek (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that those pages haven't been patrolled (by an admin or patroller) yet. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks. Ydennek (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting policy pages from English WP

Where is a good place to talk about using 2 more policy pages, from English Wikipedia, as "Rules for not writing libel" (short enwiki page "w:WP:Libel") and "Rules for changing pages" (page "w:WP:Editing policy"). I was thinking that those 2 pages would have been policies here, by now. There's no hurry on this, as I can wait a few days for an answer. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline WP:FOLLOW, that if a specific policy doesn't exist here we use the en one. So in most cases we don't really move over policies unless we run into a situation here on simple where we have had to create the page specifically for something that happened here. But as for a discussion you could have it right here, almost all discussion on this wiki happens on this page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tags

Do we really need {{Orphan}} as alot of even notable articles are orphaned. Groton (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it, and redefine its use to 2 or less articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to see this tag on articles. It serves almost no purpose exempt that people get an information they aren't looking for: There is nothing that links to here. I don't use this tag and won't. -Barras (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could, if we cleared the backlog, lead to many interlinking of articles (if we did a drive). :) fr33kman 18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think its a ridiculous tag to have on such a small wiki and why in the past its been a generally frowned upon tag to add because it adds nothing to an article. With so few articles here most articles are going to be orphaned. DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a much larger percentage of articles on smaller Wikies will be orphaned, anyway even on en a tag should only be placed on an article with no links. Groton (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's only one solution then, --> RFD fr33kman 19:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of a page that is perfectly notable is Great Waltham but there are no links to that. Groton (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the least we should only tag articles with no incoming links (the guideline at WP:Orphan isn't clear at the moment, although I would just go by the en policy). Groton (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Groton that we need to keep the tag around for use on articles with no incoming links aside from user pages. I wonder if incoming links from lists should count. The tag does give information about the article, maybe not for a casual reader, but it gives a prompt for a reader to become an editor. Gotanda (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that links from lists should count, which would then reduce the number of orphaned articles to a reasonable level as I think that it is reasonable to think that we could find a list for nearly every page. Groton (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing the point but the orphan tag doesn't suggest non-notability, it encourages people to link articles together. Nothing more. We should aim to do that really. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, on simple english Wikipedia, the orphan tag should change so it is only placed on talk pages. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created {{Babergh}}, which means that all the civil paishes that would only have had 1 link have lots, along with the other settlements, most of which had none. Groton (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Cub

Anyone interested in having a 2011 Stub Cup? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can help motivate people expand stubs, which is still one of the major problems on this wiki, then I don't see why not. Yottie =talk= 21:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering all previous cups have crashed and burned, this would be pointless. And, instead of even thinking it up, you could have just, oh, I don't know, expanded a stub? Goblin 18:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]
The 2010 version of it had a few good weeks in there, but really fizzled out towards the end. And, it seemed more like most people were just trying to get a stub to a minimum "full" article (in other words, adding enough to take the stub tag off, but no where near the length of a good article). Overall, 85 articles expanded beyond stub length, but only one reached good status, and one reached very good status. I don't know if it's worth putting in place again. Either way (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, putting it that way (i.e. we may get a GA and a VGA out of it), it sounds like a good idea. Perhaps it could be expanded to advocate moving from stub to article to GA to VGA (if that's not what already happens?) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe only give points if stubs are turned into GAs. Or otherwise, just have a 'GA/VGA cup' where the aim is to make articles v/GAs. Yottie =talk= 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Goblin -- I do expand stubs.
What about a general 'article improvement drive', where points are heavily skewed in favor of GA/VGA promotion? Of course, that would run the risk of overloading those promotional mediums. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Mediation

As we cannot use enwiki's mediation services, we have to create an informal version, preferably at Wikipedia:Mediation. It is like enwiki's informal mediation, the Mediation Cabal. --Jeffwang (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many real arguments do we have that would need a mediation page? Actually come to think of it, we did have a "project" like that a while ago but I'm not sure what it was called, therefore can't find it. That sort of sums it up though; its really not needed. Any problems can be discussed on Simple Talk or ANI or whatever... Ydennek (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reason I can't find it is because it was deleted because it wasn't used. Ydennek (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the low frequency of disputes happening, the closest thing to a mediation page is the administrators' noticeboard. That is enough for now. Chenzw  Talk  16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The whole community tends to weigh in when there's a dispute and they end very quickly. If formal or informal mediation is ever needed a body can be put together very quickly out of experienced enwiki MEDCAB/3O mediators who also edit here. fr33kman 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Would it be possible if non administrators could block and unblock bots. Groton (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add a filter in the What links here so that you can hide the links from templates, eg Assington would only have 1 article link to it (List of civil parishes in Suffolk) and would only have 3 proper links (List of civil parishes in Suffolk, Template:Babergh and User:Groton/Articles Created), but because of {{Babergh}}, it makes it look like there are many links to it. Groton (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have assumed that it clicking "Hide transclusions" would remove the links because {{Babergh}} is transcluded to the page, but it didn't work. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I tried a long time ago, because I thought that might be the reason why that option was there but as far as I could see, nothing had changed. Groton (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I checked English Wikipedia and the same issue occurs. I would assume that the filter doesn't exist then.— This unsigned comment was added by Ryan Vesey (talk • changes).
This is a X wiki suggestion. Groton (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question on usage of Simple English Wikipedia

Would it be acceptable to "copy" sort of pages from English Wikipedia in a way that uses simple English or should all pages be created from scratch. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pages can be copied from the enWP and simplified with an attribution note (Template:Enwp based) on the talk page. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that it is generally better to start from scratch, rather than semi-simplifying some of it (which is probably what would usually happen). Groton (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one does decide to transwiki an article, detailed guidance is available here. fr33kman 22:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for image filter referendum

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at Meta:Image filter referendum shortly.

Sorry for delivering you a message in English. Please help translate the pages on the referendum on Meta and join the translators mailing list.

For the coordinating committee,
Philippe (WMF)
Robert Harris

Not clear why we need a vote for this. The user can already do this with css/jss tricks. Wonkery. Jon@talk:~$ 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there one case where you can argue that doing this server-side is better than doing it client-side? - The most common use case here "Adolescent must not see other sex nude" is handled very well by client-side "filter software". Can you point out a use case, please? --Eptalon (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ept... I'll point out the above unsigned post was a bot.  :\ Jon@talk:~$ 16:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the Wikimedia foundation and would take effect on all Wikimedia projects. This is very important because it allows anonymous users to set their own content settings. These users do not have access to javascript or other tools. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect I believe.. The information page says "accounts" so anon would not set prefs. Anons do not have accounts. Jon@talk:~$ 17:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, correct. Here is the relevant information. I specifically reference this: "Users (both anonymous and registered) can select which categories they want to filter via an annotation next to filterable images that lists the filter categories the image belongs to, or from a general display setting (accessible via a registered user's preferences, or for anonymous users via a new link next to "Log in/Create account")." Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then I stand corrected. In this care, yes, a referendum is required if this is going to affect anons. Jon@talk:~$ 17:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized my (technical) concerns regarding the proposed solution. Since it concerns all projects, I have put it on the referendum talk page.--Eptalon (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a knack for converting policy pages/guide pages... Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia needs some help.  :)

Made a quick simplification, but it still refers to several pages we don't have. sonia 06:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on that. I'll probably go ahead and soft redirect those redlinks as opposed to creation of local pages. Jon@talk:~$ 04:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now is it just me...but does no one find it ironic that a page about copying content correctly, hasn't been copied correctly? Its clearly a simplified version of the en version and some of it is direct copying and it hasn't been attributed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have now fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I am blind. NVS copied one attribute. Ugh this is why I prefer full histories. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That being said I thought we already had a page like this Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. Less detailed but perhaps that is better for simple wiki? -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TA is a watered down version I made to place on folks talk pages when they are not doing it right. I like the verbosity in the other page, but, if you think it is not needed, I could take it or leave it. Sonia did do a good job with starting the conversion however. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 00:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal to me. Just thought it was sort of a duplicate. :) Have at it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've noticed BendalacBOT has been removing valid interwiki links. (Eg, see: [1].) Has anyone else noticed this? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hand-run bot, so you can ask him why he made the deletions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but this article is very much in need of work. The 'Deccan Mujahideen' are not a real terrorist group. The people who did the 2008 Mumbai attack were a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba. The 'Deccan Mujahideen' was later revealed to be a hoax. (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could do something similar to en.wikipedia and include it in a page on hoaxes after the Mumbai attack. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A while back, I added a reference (here) to the Saturn article. Since, it has been removed. Should I re-add it, or was the ref removed because it was bad or not needed? --DJDunsie (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your reference was replaced/updated to a different one. You should ask on the talk page of the article instead of here if you want more information about why. Or, find in the history where it was removed/replaced and ask that editor why he/she replaced/removed it. Either way (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the ref as it was a book reference, but did not have a page number. As the article was being worked on for VGA status, every little detail needs to be right. Normally most people would not check. It would be good practice whenever using a book reference to add the page number.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, Peter. So if I include the page number (I still have access to the book), should I re-add the reference? --DJDunsie (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, no? --DJDunsie (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twelfth of July

While I appreciate all editors and volunteers, I've never really been fond of these country / culture specific greetings on the talk... Jon@talk:~$ 06:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Where is the appropriate place to report offensive usernames á la this? --–Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 02:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN. p.s. Your signature is long in the edit window.  :( Jon@talk:~$ 03:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry. You mean the fact that it takes up a whole line? --–Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three, actually. Jon@talk:~$ 03:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on how wide your screen is.... --–Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point - it is too long. Goblin 11:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]
Your sig is longer BG - mine too probably ;) Yottie =talk= 11:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well...if you're saying Mukkakukaku's is too long, then yours is definitely too long, BG7. His contains 187 characters while yours contains 290. For what it's worth, his takes up about 1.25 lines on my screen, while BG7's takes up 2 lines plus 8 characters onto the 3rd. (And, yes, Yottie, you score at 253 characters). Either way (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I have had issue with all three and wish people wouldn't have such ridiculous sigs....but I haven't bothered arguing about it. There is no need for flashy sigs. Though come to think of it we do have a guideline somewhere about the max length of sigs don't we? I vaguely recall us creating one when someone else was getting so long. -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible thing to bother arguing about. If it ends the argument, I checked WP:Signatures#length and signatures must be less than 255 characters. Blue Goblin is the only one with a signature longer than 255 characters. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that. It states the software will shorten them. Jon@talk:~$ 00:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I propose to require shortening signatures, perhaps to what would be one line on a normal screen (average screen). Jon@talk:~$ 00:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I thought we already had. But I guess we didn't. -DJSasso (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "average screen"? And I'd like to mention that I've been using this sig on the english wiki for about 6 years now with no problems. --–Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 00:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well per our accessibility guidelines we are supposed to design our articles to look good under 1024x768. So that would be what would be considered an average screen. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The width of a line of text also depends on the size of the font. A few Ctrl+ and anyone's sig can be "too long." --–Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection... I withdraw my proposal. I don't want to bother with folks time too much over this type of issue. I really had not intended for it to become such a discussion, out of my "p.s.". Kind regards. Jon@talk:~$ 03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you created a new "Proposal" header to discuss a requirement for shortened sigs? Odd. Anyway, on topic, long sigs annoy me a bit, but I look for the "(UTC)" to see where the end of the comment is. No big deal. Mukkakukaku's sig doesn't actually seem that long compared to others anyway... Ydennek (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true, but when editing, it does take up quite a lot of space. HydrizTalk 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is also true. However going by Either Way's info, Mukkakukaku's sig is only 187 characters, under the recommended 255. So whats the problem? If we're looking to change the recommended figure then personally I'd go by a "every case on its own merits" kind of deal. Ydennek (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A limit should be an exact number of characters and not "one line on a normal screen (average screen)". Then the next discussion will be about what an average screen is. Not that I actually care much about the sigs... -Barras (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If there were no problem, I would have not mentioned it. However, and illustrated above, it is difficult to read thru all that mess. I took the comment as dismissive. Jon@talk:~$ 06:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not dismissive. I wouldn't do that to you scream. I just don't personally see a problem, but ... just my 2c fr33kman 07:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally try not to make the lengths of signatures a problem, because mine is approximately 249 characters (though I'd like it to be less myself), but it is difficult to "design" them as such. I quoted design, because some signatures are not original, but a duplicate of other signature(s). In this case, I would support the LiquidThreads extension, as it keeps the signatures for each comment in a different place, although we wouldn't usually need to edit a user's thread, but rather, select "reply". However, as I may have strayed a bit, I oppose this proposal, unless you attempt to refer to the actual display of signatures.  Hazard-SJ  ±  20:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Who usually does this... it is about time again. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 18:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip was doing them...but they were at random time intervals...I think the most recent one closed about two months ago. I forget when exactly. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Was March so actually 4 months I guess. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Code request

Is it possible to code something that will allow me to click on a tab and open the english equiv of the article? I do alot of comparing when I check for unattributed derivatives. I know there is an iw link, however, sometimes the iw is not added when the article is created. Developers(in the sense of all coders)... thank you again for your time on these things! :o) Jon@talk:~$ 00:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this in your monobook.js:
$( function () {
	var enwikiUrlPath;
	if( mw.config.get( 'wgServer' ).indexOf( 'https://' ) === 0 ) {
		enwikiUrlPath = mw.config.get( 'wgServer' ) + '/wikipedia/en/wiki/';
	} else {
		enwikiUrlPath = '';
	mw.util.addPortletLink( 'p-cactions', enwikiUrlPath + encodeURIComponent( mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) ),
		"enwiki", "ca-enwiki-link", "View same page on the English Wikipedia" );
} );
Cheers, Grunny (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blast, beat me to it! :-p Oh well. Nice coding, BTW. :-) -Avicennasis @ 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And people say that open software doesn't work. .... although, ... Avicennasis' code does look more bit lean ;) fr33kman 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Avicennasis, and sorry, scream asked in IRC and I didn't notice you were working on it too. @fr33kman, mine's a bit longer as it accounts for whether people are using the secure server or not, might not be necessary for some people, but I thought it might be useful :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. :-) I never would have thought about secure server myself - I don't generally use it. -Avicennasis @ 01:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just always just type en over the simple in the address bar but this is decent too...takes me longer to do it through the menu though. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you try this, I changed it so it puts the link after the History link in Vector which might be better. :) Cheers, Grunny (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one is the best Grunny, many thanks. Do we have a page to list useful scripts? --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback please

I have just translated my first article from the English Wikipedia, and would appreciate some feedback on whether I have made any mistakes, before I do any others. Please leave comments at: Talk:Skyland, Washington, D.C. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template code

I go through ebbs and flows with regards to content work. I have writers block. I will continue to have writers block until my userpage is set proper. Once that is done, then I will be creative again :) So please forgive my deviation from mainspace. I do however have a request. I don't know when my award page broke, it is however broke. Anyone who is good at this and has a chance, perhaps could take a look at User:NonvocalScream/awards. Thank you in advance. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 23:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - Have fun! -Barras (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Jon@talk:~$ 00:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have time for a little pre-PGA feedback?

The article on Jean Balukas was demoted in early June as part of the recent run of article demotions. Even though I was trying to save the article, I support that demotion--I just didn't have time to get to everything during the time allowed (even with some very generous extensions). The writing has been improved. I've finally caught up and cleared all of the red links and fixed the references. (Or, at least I think I have fixed them all.) I'll probably put it up for PGA soon, but have so much going on at work this week that I'll have to wait. Wouldn't have time to reply to comments. If anyone has time to give it another once over and check, I'd appreciate it. Of course, if you want to nom it for GA, please go right ahead! Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

I don't seem to have a move tab. Could someone please move Brentwood (Washington, D.C.) to Brentwood, (Washington, D.C.) to be consistent with other article names? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to wait to get autoconfirmed status to be able to move pages...--Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think that would be correct. I Support the move and have Done it. I will also Redirect your attention to Eptalon's comment regarding the move tab. If you Give it some time and Hold on, your should be autoconfirmed shortly. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 21:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering, but could someone please move The Shire (Middle-Earth) to the correct spelling Shire (Middle-earth) (The latter existed previously as a redirect to a collective article.)? -Winterkind (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jon@talk:~$ 16:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donated texts about endangered species


I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive. They have kindly agreed to donate 200 article texts from their project, to Wikipedia. The texts are about about endangered species. Details are on the ARKive project page.

We are improving articles on the English Wikipedia using the donated texts. Once we have done that, we would like people to rewrite then for the Simple Wikipedia. The articles are listed on the project page. Can you help?

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Pigsonthewing (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great project. Many of our editors would probably prefer to work from the original material, rather than reworking an English Wikipedia page. I am sure we can help. --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created the {{ARKive}} template to include links from ARKive. Example output for Komodo dragon is:

Komodo dragon from ARKive
Facts Status Description Range Habitat Biology Threats Conservation Find out more Glossary References View all

--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
updated template call for new parameter format.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A new parameter, short=yes, has been added to suppress the second line of links. For example, {{ARKive|komodo-dragon|varanus-komodoensis|Komodo dragon|short=yes}} displays
Komodo dragon from ARKive
--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that cat supposed to only consist of subcats, and not pages? Because there are a couple dozen pages in that category. Could someone do me a favor and help place those pages in subcats, adding new subcats if necessary? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


...Petrichor. :) Jon@talk:~$ 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Why have we kept that article? Ydennek (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- it seems like something that should be in Wiktionary, not here. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We kept it because it did not meet criteria for quick deletion. There is no deletion discussion permitting its deletion as well. My opinion only, it shows promise. Now, it is a word with a notable etymology and the article is sourced. I'm sure more stuff can be brought over from another wiki, like English Wikipedia. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 05:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the sort of situation that WP:IAR exists for. To not follow bureaucracy when its clear something should be done. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it

Template problem

The convert template is showing a problem. Looking at Saturn (planet) article (which is where I saw it, it is giving a "noinclude" message in the middle of the conversion. Anyone know how to fix it?--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it was probably because of my edits to Template:Convert/numdisp, but I think I've fixed the issue now. Could you please check? Thanks, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks OK now, thanks --Peterdownunder (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from France needs to be renamed/moved

I'm not sure of the correct procedure for this. I think the name should be "People from France by city", because there is already Category:French people for people who are French. I just moved three people from "People from France" to "French people". Is making the change as simple as just moving the category? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. I can make the change. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done but with the more generic/simpler Category:French people by location which can be further subdivided in the future to be by city or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good -- thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PGA needs some attention this weekend

Where I am posting from, I'm almost ready for the weekend. If any editors can make time, please have a look at Proposed good articles. There are two pending: The Titan's Curse has been there a few days. (My initial comments are here). I've just added Jean Balukas. Both could use feedback. See you on the Talk pages, Gotanda (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT change proposal

Racepacket and DYK

Racepacket not following editing restrictions: Block or Ban?

He is back to directly bringing in complex content from En. Template:PDB is almost word-for-word from En. He bypassed the editing restriction. Given his block log on En for disruptive editing and harassment and one-year ban on En, I think he's had his "one strike".

  • I don't see a QD criteria for breaking editing restriction, but I've tagged as transwiki'd anyway.
  • There is an ongoing DYK block discussion, but is it time for more general restrictions on this user? The "one strike" rule would point to a ban. At least a block seems in order. But, I've never been in a position to want to ask for this. Not sure how to go about it, so I am asking here.

I much prefer to try to get new editors in. And, I've tried to help this editor. Can't waste anymore time on this. Gotanda (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the QD from the template as template code should remain the same, and an unsimple doc is not a reason to delete a template. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I nominated for Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion. Unsimplified copy in direct violation of editing restrictions. Thanks, Griffinofwales, for explaining. The other issues of not following editing restrictions after a one year ban on En remain. Gotanda (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Editor is now blocked. Block review is here. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket and Simple English

N.B.; the word "article" is meant to mean any page. fr33kman 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets and tools

Today, I reverted some vandalism. After reverting the vandalism, I went to warn the user with Twinkle. Unfortunately, the edit was not completed and it looks like the tool is broken. I have enabled the gadget and have attempted to edit with Twinkle while using both Vector and Monobook. I have also disabled the gadget and have tried to use Twinkle with just the installation steps found here. Does anyone know what's going on with Twinkle? Is there a possible fix? Additionally, I noticed that Vandal Warner only works while using the Monobook skin. MJ94 (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed that yesterday. Anybody know some code?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that typing <tt>'''</tt> bolds text. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. MJ94 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle has never really worked properly here as it was made for and it was just copied here, but alot of our code underneath the hood isn't the same as en so it doesn't always work. What really needs to happen is have Twinkle rewritten from the ground up as we get questions like this fairly often. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Twinkle really needed here to begin with? MJ94 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite handy.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't use it but I know many others here do so I don't know. I would tend to say no its not. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only use it for warnings, and it is great for that. Gives the standard along with the option for a custom message. It seems to break every so often and somebody comes along eventually and finds the issue. Not sure why.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle is a most adorable tool, and can be considered a WikiPet :). Would you like me to get an updated version of it and localize it here?  Hazard-SJ  ±  03:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. --Peterdownunder (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I am personally missing some block templates that could be here (and simplified of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsadowski1 (talkcontribs)
Is it too much to ask to get Twinkle that does most of the things EN twinkle does? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes yes... it is called coding cost. It takes time. If you will notice, when I make code requests, they are usually minor and I have no expectation. Jon@talk:~$ 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see how it goes.  Hazard-SJ  ±  20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since everything is on one page, I ask that you help by informing me of needed changes on the talk page, as that would make things easier. Thanks.  Hazard-SJ  ±  21:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal image filter referendum"

Hello. :) This is not local policy, but it may affect all Wikimedia Foundation projects.

The Board of Trustees has told the Wikimedia Foundation to hold a vote to figure out if people want a "personal image filter". This filter would let our readers decide if they want to stop some kinds of images from showing up on their own computer screens. It would not stop any images from showing for anybody else, but only for those people who decide that they want to "hide" the images for themselves.

The idea is to let our readers have the choice. For instance, a mother might set her own computer so that she can look at articles with her children and not worry that they will see something too violent or sexual for their age. This can help her use Wikipedia with them without stopping other people from seeing the images she does not want.

The vote on this is going to be held between 12 August and 27 August. You can read about it at m:Image filter referendum/en and especially m:Image filter referendum/FAQ/en.

Most registered users are allowed to vote one time. (You can't be blocked on more than one project or on the project you try to vote from. You can't be a bot. And you have to have edited at least 10 times before 1 August.) Between 12 August and 27 August, you can vote by going to Special:SecurePoll and doing what that page tells you.

Thanks! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If someone would not mind reviewing Gay Nigger Association of America for simple standards and letting me know if I missed anything glaring in the way of conversion... I would be most thankful. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 15:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would give it a good read again and do some copy editing. There is a lot of bad grammar such as "The data was gotten from". And a couple broken references that I would go to and get. Doesn't really have anything to do with being simple but should be done either way. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally missed that "gotten". I had to laugh, I'm usually good at catching those. Must be distracted. I'll check references now. Also, simplification mostly done? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about categories that seem to be the same

I'm looking at these two categories:

  1. Category:People by ethnicity
  2. Category:People by race or ethnicity

The second one has no articles, and only 2 subcategories, Category:Middle Eastern people and Category:Semitic peoples. Is there a distinction I'm missing, or can these two subcategories be moved to Category:People by ethnicity, and then the other category deleted? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know more about our categories than anyone else, so do it. And you are probably right too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, move done, and delete requested. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category deleted; talking about race in a category is problematic, and may lead to all forms of racism.--Eptalon (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That was one of my concerns as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference format I don't understand

In the article Bodhi tree, I don't understand what the text in the references means. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess, but probably copied over from enwiki and then people didn't bring over the list of books, which are then actually the references for those short-cuts. Just an idea, could be wrong. -Barras (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Looks likely. I'll copy the reference data over. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion template broken

Someone has been "playing" with the convert template which is now showing this message as a redlink after the conversion "Template:Convert/test/A" - see Lenzburg for example. Any clues on how to fix it?--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a new problem, then the problem might be this. Maybe talk to JC? -Barras (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is it. I have left him a message. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the addition of a testing template which wasn't copied over when JC updated it. Fixed now :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am again in awe of people who understand templates.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_road could use a fix

If someone could take a look at Template:Infobox_road and figure out why maps are coming out like they are on articles like U.S. Route 66, I'd appreciate it. Either way (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be also a problem with the recent import done by JC. /me shrugs. -Barras (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another missing template, should be fixed :). Cheers, Grunny (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use, again .....

Hi! Sorry, but I feel it's time to discuss this again. fr33kman 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or something like it .... fr33kman 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend here for the discussion. Save flooding ST? fr33kman 16:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is located at Non-free content proposal in project space. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 00:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link, hope you don't mind. Yottie =talk= 09:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Michael's categories

Jim Michael (talk · contribs) I had proposed discussion of his categories, but people jumped on me and accused me of proposing sanctions, which I wasn't, instead. I was told that AN is for editors and ST is for pages, so I'm taking it here. The thrust of my discussion is that Jim Michael has created a lot of categories recently, but hasn't populated them. I want to figure out which of these categories we want to keep and which ones, if any, should be deleted. If this isn't an AN issue, it IS an ST/content issue Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Course project

I'm new to Simple English Wikipedia, but I've been around a fair bit. I'm doing a course on Simple English Wikipedia this fall and just wanted the community to be aware that there will be some new users around. They are undergrads in a Children's Literature class. My class is described here. I should have a list of the articles we will be working on up in the next week or so. Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting project! Be aware, though, that SimpleWiki is not specifically for children. It is for anyone whose English skills are not very advanced. That includes people whose first language is not English, people who aren't very literate, etc. There are many articles here on very adult topics. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade protection

Shouldn't the Main Page be cascade-protected to prevent complex vandalism? — Waterfox ~talk~ 21:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I did this the last time, people complained about it. So, actually no. -Barras (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK is sometimes updated by non-admins; this would make this impossible. sonia 21:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not just DYK, much of the Main Page has been updated and looked after by non-admins historically. We've also never had reason to cascade protect - it was only fully protected a couple of years ago, I remember when it was semi-! Goblin 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie![reply]
There is not a need at the moment, however, always open to exploration as required. Jon@talk:~$ 23:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]