Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 94

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any tennis fans out there? Ana Ivanović needs an update

Ana Ivanović is on the front page right now through the VGA rotation. It was tagged for an update in February by user:KnowIG. Wins, revenue, etc end in 2009. Ranking is out of date. Since it is on the front page, maybe needs the fix more urgently, but I don't know tennis. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's tagged as such, and hasn't been updated in two years, it needs to be PADded Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd try the less drastic route and ask editors for help once before going direct to PAD. We've had so many of them lately. Fixes should be easy for someone who follows the sport. Gotanda (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I give up. What is PAD? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Proposed article demotionMûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 08:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a little spring cleaning, at least the woefully outdated statistics are fixed now. I'll see what else needs doing later on. Courcelles (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enwp based

Just wondering, I imported a template (Template:Ain communes) and thought I ought to attribute it to enwp with the template we have (Template:Enwp based). However, it seems to be for articles only (well at least, that is how it is worded). Should I: a) Have added this template to the Talk Page even though it was imported, not copied, and therefore history can be found here; b) Should we have a template which works for everything, not only articles? Thanks, Yottie =talk= 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you don't need to use that template on pages you have imported, as all the attribution needed is in the history where it says you imported the page.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you so an actual import you don't need to do anything to attribute it as that is done automatically by the import command. -DJSasso (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yottie =talk= 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


We're getting 4chan raids? Something I've never noticed on simple... Ydennek (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen one so far. They like to hit around 06:00-07:00 UDT when simple's pretty deserted. –Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global rights policy

Please discuss Thx fr33kman 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could have sworn we already had this somewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
en:WP:GRP?/m:MSR Maybe that one on en? We've never had something here. I don't expect much changes (it's pretty much what enwiki says) but I figured with lots of stewards locally now I figured it was time. fr33kman 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need this? Not that I care much anyway, but the only people acting here are probably GRs (who should know what they are doing) and stewards (who only act if really needed). Maybe we should start with a policy about the policies? Don't make things more complex then ever useful and needed. -Barras (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving overall quality of content at SEWP

I believe under the current quick deletion policy, admins are entitled to delete very short stubs, usually referred to as one-liners. I propose this limit be raised, to anything which is three lines or less. By clicking show any page a few times, I came up with Uremia (I said so on IRC, WoO expanded it, kindly): it has been there for two years, was not correctly formatted or long enough, but still was included at SEWP in this sate (NVS added a template, so it is not as if nobody had seen it (no offense to him, many people, including my self, might have done the same and ignored the state in which it was)). Although it may be a notable subject, how does this help the encyclopedia's image? Say someone does the exact same thing as me, and clicks the random page button. What will he think, if one in five, one in four, one in three articles is only a few lines long? A non-formatted one-liner is not a sign of quality, even a formated two-liner is not, and that is not what we want to achieve; we can not accept to have so many very short articles. I am sure there are lots more. category:stubs has over 10,000 articles in it, and I'm sure there are more which are not tagged. If anyone has a better solution, please, do not hold back. Yottie =talk= 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI one-liners are deleted under QD:A1 "Little or no content" at the moment. fr33kman 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And they shouldn't be if all they are deleting them for is being short. Our A1 is just a simple english version of "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." This applies only to very short articles. Context is different from content, treated in A3, below. Caution is needed when using this tag on newly created articles." This is a very different thing than just being short. A stub can be a sentence and still have context and be an appropriate stub. A once sentence stub is better than no article at all. As for the random article clicking, I think people overplay that argument because the average reader doesn't click random article especially on our wiki. The random article link is mostly clicked by editors who really are already editors so they aren't likely to go away because of stubs. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but on simplewiki it's been A1 that's been used if I recall correctly. fr33kman 22:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is A1. In fact our A1 specifically says Having a small amount of content is not a reason to delete if it has useful information. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If I put myself in the shoes of a non-editor for a moment and I type in "Pasta" and I get no article at all I am going to be much more disappointed and have a much worse view of the wiki than if I type in "Pasta" and get a one or two sentence stub on the subject. And this is most common way a reader is going to look for articles, not by pressing random. Not having an article at all on a notable subject is far worse than having a one sentence stub. I think editors tend to lose sight of that, especially ones who bring up the random article clicking. Most people who come to a wiki are looking for something specific. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Razorflame will be pleased :) fr33kman 04:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with DJSasso's example. Something is better than nothing in most examples. Strange how I seem to find myself in agreement with him lately :P Just that I'm not sure for example "X is a town in Y" or "ABC is a football player from DEF"' is really all that useful without some more information backing it up... I'd tend to lean towards deleting those examples, but if the minimum was say three lines (which brings into account people's resolutions though) or a set number of characters (whilst using common sense) then I'd be happy to allow those to remain. I'd bet that people are more likely to add to an article thats already there than start one from scratch...? Ydennek (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the problems is that too many editors spend too much time creating craptacular articles on not-particulary notable things (a problem we wouldn't have if we had agreed to stick to narrower perameters, as I had had urged). I think that common sense needs to be taken when considering of short pages. For example, Pasta and Pocatello, Idaho, keep; Red Bow Tie Pasta and Avoca, Iowa, throw. I am perfectly fine with craptacutular pages on nonimportant (i.e. they pass a notability guideline, but wouldn't be on a 10,000 or even 100,000 Meta articles list) being QDed, RFDed, or PRODded Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean that some of the articles I am going to create, here are too non-notable? The reason I ask is because it is better to not create them than to delete them later. DJDunsie (talk · changes) 07:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the notability of these, but at least they are long enough! Yottie =talk= 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as you make them longer than just a one-liner they should be good. If you don't think you can do that, then maybe consolidate them into something like Apollo missions. --–Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had similar discussions here again and again in the past. Nothing will change anyway. All the discussions ended with the same result. We keep any one-liners and stuff. I'd just suggest to help to expand the stuff (even if only enwiki based) rather than complaining about how bad our articles are. This goes nowhere. Complaining here and pointing out the issue we are all aware about is useless. -Barras (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing link in Template:Foreignchar

Hello all,

The template {{foreignchar}} is used to signal foreign characters in an article that are equivalent. That way, ß can be replaced by ss, ö by oe,ä by ae, and ü by ue, for the German language. The problem is that the template links the second name with the replaced character. In most cases, this will result in a link to the original article, as there should be a redirect. As this does not provide additional info, I think we should change the template to not link the second (target) name. Any thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to unlink the second name. If a case ever came up where the link was necessary, it could be included in the template call. For example {{Foreignchar | ß | [[Giessen]] }}--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance I have removed the link in the template; pages that need the link should now specify it, as outlined above.--Eptalon (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar al-Gaddafi

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Muammar al-Gaddafi regarding a current dispute over the article. There has been a change war of sorts over the last few weeks at the article. I welcome the community's opinion at the talk page so that we can create an acceptable version of the article. Admins, i do not feel like a protection is necessary at the moment (especially not on an article that is part of a major event), but if you believe protection is needed, please do impose it at any time. Thank you, Either way (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think protection needs to be considered, owning to the fact that there has been a content dispute and the potential volitility of the article. I also think we should wait a couple weeks until Gaddafi is found and the takeover of Tripoli is complete Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the media attention this is getting at the moment, I think an update/extension of the article, with possibly creating annex articles (about his sons,...) would be helpful....--Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Movie vs. film

In category names, how important is it to use "movie" instead of "film"? I'm seeing quite a few categories with the word "film". If this is important enough to change, I'd be glad to help however I can -- maybe flag them, create equivalent "movie" categories, or whatever. Do I as a regular garden-variety user have the authority to move categories? Even if I do, I assume there's a tool that would do the move and change the articles in the category. Let me know what I can do, if anything needs to be done. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to use movie. Most of the film mistakes are people who didn't realize we use the other or just copied from en and pasted here. I fix them when I see them but I don't go out of my way to do it. If you see a category mistake let one of us admins know and we can probably fix it as its likely to be uncontroversial. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll put a list on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly Good or Very Good Articles

I'm sure I must be missing something simple, but I'm trying to find a list of all demoted GAs and VGAs. There are two reasons why. One, they may be easier to bring back to GA or VGA status and thus improve the appearance of the wiki. Two, and more important, I'm doing a presentation at a conference in September about Simple for a group of language teachers and want to make it very easy for them to find a wide range of "pretty good" articles. Yes, we have the current GAs and VGAs, but not enough of them. I figure any page that was once good enough to be V/GA is probably still reasonably good, or at least has some substantial content. It may have been demoted for lack of citations etc, but still be worth reading. If send them wading through the Demotions Archives, they'll lose interest. Any chance the former V/GAs are gathered or listed somewhere? Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category:Former good articles and Category:Former very good articles. Not much there, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the demotion archive is really the only place that has them all, I'd say. You could go through and add them all to the categories Auntof6 listed, or make a list in a subpage of them. Seems to be the only option at this point. Either way (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Auntof6 and Either way. I'll try to stock the categories after I take a break for a few days. Gotanda (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories needing combining

There are duplicate categories for United States' counties, such as Category:Arkansas counties and Category:Counties in Arkansas. I don't think they're duplicated for all states. Two questions:

  • Which is the preferred form, "Counties in X" or "X counties"?
  • Is there some automated way of merging categories?

One further wrinkle: the category for California is called Category:Counties of California ("of" instead of "in"). Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further research, the problem isn't as widespread as I thought. There are only two cases of duplicates, so I'll just merge them manually. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation permission request

Please may I have permission to (eventually) create articles on the books of Beatrix Potter. I will try and include a few sentences about each book and a plot summary. The reason I ask is for notability reasons. Thank you, DJDunsie (talk · changes) 20:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No person ever really needs permission to edit here. You can take a look at notability and reliable sources for more guidance. Also, verifiability may be good as well. Kindly, Jon@talk:~$ 21:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your help, DJDunsie (talk · changes) 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

United States Civil Rights Movement

For 150 years, there has been a struggle for civil rights in the United States. This focused upon the rights denied and discrimination against people on the basis of race, religion, gender and national origin. It is a very complicated political, sociological, and legal area of research. On the English Wikipedia, there are articles with these current names and length in bytes:

Article Length
African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–1895) 14,762
African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) 53,457
African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) 128,312
Civil rights movement 45,670
Chicano Movement 16,272
Second-wave feminism 47,229
Gay liberation 17,879

It seems to me that rather than a very short stub for each of these, it would be better to summarize them all in an single Simple English article entitled "United States Civil Rights Movement." I would be willing to do that, but wanted to learn the consensus of the group before we start on such a task. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! It would be nice, if some of you would take a look at the current DYK nominations. There are currently quite a few and we need help there. It would of course also be appreciated if you nominate some articles. -Barras (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia

Is anyone else here familiar with this tool? I use it regularly, and I'm trying to find the "translation page" for Simple English Wikipedia. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge {{Commonscat}} and {{Commonscats}}

I propose the merging of {{Commonscat}} and {{Commonscats}}. They are quite similar in usage, but could be easily merged. Also, they are both on the same pages in some cases. (Or should I just do it?)  Hazard-SJ  ±  00:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admins can't do merges as merge means the history of both should be merged. This can only be done with a delete button. -Barras (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have two different purposes and should remain separate. -DJSasso (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


On the general WP in English, "The Brabançonne" was moved (renamed) en:Brabançonne. I suggest doing the same on the WP in simple English. (Arguments occur on the general WP's talk page on that article + indirectly in a footnote inside that article.) -SomeHuman on the general WP in English (talk there) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle - again

Would we be able to update Twinkle so it gives us the option to RFD and tag pages easier (similar to en.wp)? MJ94 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic English 850 word "Impulse"

I think the information on page Impulse probably isn't the meaning that was intended when this word was included on the 850-word list. Would anyone have a problem if I remove Category:Basic English 850 words and move the page to something like Impulse (mechanics) to avoid the category being re-added? Or am I completely off-base? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. On enWP the 'impulse' page is a disambig, and they use Impulse (physics) rather than Impulse (mechanics) for the content similar to our page (either term would do). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder and a preliminary look at Non-free content proposal

The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_proposal seems to have dropped off. It is worth noting that Barras proposed a kind of compromise about half way through the comments. Maybe not everyone saw that.

I thought it was worth bringing this back to people's attention in case some editors may have missed the whole thing, may not have seen Barras' idea, or may want to give this more thought.

If I try to pull the names together it looks like this. (I'm not trying to strictly count votes, but it is a long, multi-thread discussion. It's been off the Simple Talk front page for a while. Apologies if I've misread anyone.)

With Barras' suggestion

(assuming people who support the original would accept this version) I see something like this. Moderate support, but not approaching a consensus.

  • Oppose

Jon, Gordonrox24, Goblin, DJSasso, Eptalon, Griffinofwales, Peterdownunder

  • Support

fr33kman, CRRaysHead90, Ydennek, Addihockey10, Three Headed Knight, Purplebackpack, Yottie, Macdonald-ross, Gotanda, Barras, Sonia, Pmlineditor, Normandy

  • Maybe support?

Avicennasis, Racepacket

  • Maybe oppose?


Just trying to encourage any other editors to check the later comments and add their ideas to the discussion. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you have counted me twice in the With Barras' Suggestion Support section as Ydennek and Normandy and as Ydennek in the Original Support section. Sorry for the confusion of changing my name. Normandy (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled, again

The discussion now seems to have stalled completely and, therefore, reached its natural conclusion. Could we get an admin or a bureaucrat (It would be best, though in reality I think anyone on the wiki could judge the consensus and close it) to maybe close the discussion now either way as I think it has run its course. Thanks, Goblin 17:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

It already has been closed... All that was left was talking about other options which doesn't really require any kind of "decision" at the moment as people have to actually find out if its technically possible, which I don't think it is. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am referring to the other options - the way I interpreted the 'close' was that these were being left open for an additional period of consultation. There's been ample time to consult those that know if it's possible or not and there's been no responses for some time, suggesting that interest has waned. Let's not leave this open indefinitely. Goblin 20:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
Still don't think there is anything to close...not every discussion needs a formal close. If someone finds out in a few weeks time that it can be done then the discussion can continue...otherwise it doesn't hurt anything sitting there. Just put it on your watch list and all is well. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need image

There is an image on En Wikipedia,, that would be useful to an article that I am writing. Could someone please move it to commons? I don't fully understand its templates or the process. Thanks, (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need The templates say it is a candidate to copy over, but how does one trigger that? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to move the image to commons? --Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account on Commons or on English Wikipedia. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try single unified login. It's probably already set up, and once it is you'll automatically get an account on all WMF wikis when you first visit them. Goblin 22:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]
He is blocked on en I do believe don't know about meta. -DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Naproxen_synthesis.png is now at the Commons. Albacore (talk · changes) 12:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English

Is the words participate and optional allowed in Simple English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I think that thia is the wrong question. An article in this WP should be easy to understand. Especially when writing about science subjects, it is important to use a certain vocabulary;so there may be little choice. You should however look out to explain the subject well, so that it can be understood easily. If you look for examples, we have two classes of better-quality articles, called "good articles" and "very good articles". Many of these show how an article can be written that is easy to understand, yet covers the subject well...--Eptalon (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Participate = take part. That is both simpler and better English. Optional is trickier; the concept is something like 'you may choose'. One useful tool is wiktionary. Press optional to see what comes up, and notice (via edit button) its syntax (how it's done). As Ep says, in technical subjects there will be technical terms which are essential to the subject. Here the possibilities are: 1. You may explain them on first use. 2. You may link to another article which explains the term. 3. You may link the term to an explanation in wiktionary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing new articles that are not in other wikis?

I know that this is a rule (somewhere) but what happens if we find a article that does not exist in any other Wikipedia but shows notability? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of that rule. I would think you could write such an article, as long as you write it in simple terms. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you've plucked that from, but first time I've heard it in nearly three years here. If it's notable it's in, regardless of whether it's in another Wikipedia or not. Every Wikipedia is standalone from the rest as far as content is concerned. Goblin 00:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
Oh I thought it was. Alright thanks for replying you guys. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time views

How can you see the number of views on the page in real-time? (sorry for complex English)-- (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't see real time but you can see on a month by month basis. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to combine some gender-specific categories

I've found the following categories that I think could be merged into gender-inclusive (is that a word?) categories.

Current categories Proposed new category
Princes of Savoy
Princesses of Savoy
Princes and Princesses of Savoy
Princes of Piedmont
Princesses of Piedmont
Princes and Princesses of Piedmont
Spanish infantes
Spanish infantas
Spanish infantes and infantas

What say ye, and what would be the best way to proceed? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several more examples of these. I only propose this because I see other categories that are already combined. Which is better -- combined or separate? Either way, I'd be glad to either consolidate or split categories and then request category renames, if that would be less work for other folks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combine, because 1. numbers not large and 2 sex of individuals obvious from titles. Macdonald-ross (talk)
Thanks for your input. I'm not sure of the right procedure for getting consensus here. I could post on the talk pages of the categories, but is there a place other than here to bring it to folks' attention for comment? --Auntof6 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest combining as we don't need separate subcategories when the number of articles in them is not very large. Makes the process complex while our aim is to be as simple as possible. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combine them, and don't wait for a consensus or you'll be waiting forever - the only way things get done around here are thanks to WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Goblin 17:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]
I disagree Goblin, I think he should wait for consensus as I don't feel this is a change that would happen without controversy. It's a major change that needs to be discussed. CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The request has been sitting here 6 days...if it was going to cause controversy someone would have objected by now. Go ahead and be WP:BOLD and have at it. If someone objects stop and discuss again...but I doubt anyone would. -DJSasso (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting the merge to move things along if its really needed. IAR and BOLD though... Normandy (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks everyone. I've changed these, and I'll change others as I find them (including, dukes/duchesses, etc., too). --Auntof6 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

I'd like to understand the rules and procedures for disambiguation pages here on Simple English Wikipedia. I'm used to working with them on enwiki, so recently I have been removing redlinked things from them. However, today I learned that another editor has been putting the red links back. Do we follow the same dab page conventions here as on enwiki, or are the different? If there is no policy, I'd like to discuss creating one. Thanks for your consideration. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation is what we have in regards to a guideline. Other than that red links are much more valuable here than en as we are constantly trying to get people to create articles on anything notable. As mentioned in the past we have left red links in disambiguation pages as they help generate article creation. (assuming there are blue links in the page as well.) -DJSasso (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is not in the official policy, the approach outlined by Djsasso makes sense to me. We can learn from the dab pages of English Wikipedia. While I would not necessarily copy over every red link from a dab page on English Wikipedia, I would generally honor their naming conventions. So if there are 10 notable people named Joseph Smith and I was creating the article for the first of them, I would still name it "Joseph Smith (politician)" and leave the main "Joseph Smith" article for a dab page. I would not delete a pre-existing dab page or the red links from a dab page, because they do add value to a reader. The dab page can tell the reader whether the one Joseph Smith article is the person of interest. Red links serve two important purposes. First, they tell the reader what coverage is missing. Second, they encourage the creation of the missing articles. Racepacket (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest leaving red links (within reason of course). Francisco_Hernández is a pretty good example where someone looking for a Francisco Hernández might wind up in the wrong place without the red linked entries on the dab. If only the two blue ones were there, they could wind up in the wrong place. Knowing you don't have all of the information is valuable. Now, what does "within reason" mean? Who knows? Or, actually, we all do. Some restraint on red links is probably good, but a blanket removal of them all doesn't seem helpful to me. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like "red links shouldn't be more than about half the entries on the page" (or whatever fraction seems right)? I've seen some dab pages with 30 or so entries, where less than half a dozen were bluelinked. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100% with Auntof 6 on this one (delete/remove them), and stand by my previous comments. (Though realise that some are obsolete following on the articles concerned.) Goblin 05:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]

There is no way we will ever need the fantastically complex disambig pages which are usual on enWP, because our number of articles is two magnitudes less than theirs. All our pages should be tailored to our needs, and that applies to disambig pages also. On a disambig page redlinks should be limited to those which are of obviously central importance and likely to be written soon. Otherwise, disambig pages should have only blue links. A page which does not exist (and might never exist) does not need to be listed.
On names, IMO it is important that the highly famous names are given prime standing, as Winston Churchill. If other WCs are listed a disambig is created 'Winston Churchill (disambig)' or (here's a thought) 'Winston Churchills'. There is room for debate on this.
Lastly, it seems fussy to import and edit disambig pages. We can build them as need arises, and in so doing they are more likely to serve our needs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine you're a reader. You come here to look for Jim Smith. You will get one of the following options:

  • "There is more than one Jim Smith; Jim Smith the footballer, Jim Smith the politician, Jim Smith the poet and Jim Smith the author." Even if all are red links at least it gives you some information. I.e. he was a footballer, politician, poet or author.
  • OR, you get nothing. "Sorry we don't have a page called Jim Smith". We don't know who he is. Sorry. Can't help you.

Personally I feel the first is the best. Even if it is a placeholder until we improve its at least something. I'm leaning slightly towards leaving redlink pages actually... Normandy (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everyone, I'm convinced. Red Links Are Not Evil. It was a different mindset than I was used to, so I just needed to get my mind around it. You may now all return to your previously scheduled editing. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music files allowed?

Are file samples allowed to be uploaded here? Template:Listen is on Simple but is there any rules that forbid samples being downloaded? and if there is not, how can I upload a music sample if there's no option for music files? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template exists for people who do spoken word articles. Where you read the entire article and record it. As for music sample we haven't typically done that for the same reason we don't allow image upload. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Best, AJona1992 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've improved alot. Look at my edit history today!-- (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, took a very quick look at a couple of your edits today and you are improving... Why not register though? Also, don't template the regulars. It's seen as a lack of respect. If the person is a regular you take a few minutes to talk to them rather than a generic template. Regards, Normandy (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rights of IP users

Would it make sense to limit peer review nominations, DYK nominations, GA nominations, and VGA nominations to registered users? This would give IP users a reason to register. (See "Improving" above.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd rather not get to the point of trying to coerce users into having accounts. We already somewhat do I suppose since they can comment in Rfx's but can't vote etc. But at the same time we need to be open to IPs. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free encyclopedia anybody can edit. That means anybody, even the anonymous. We shouldn't be limiting any part of content creation to just named users imo.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it generally makes sense to "invite" people to create an account; without one, they will not be able to vote in some processes. DYK on the other hand, is about finding an interesting snippet of info in the haystack, I do not see how this should be limited to logged-in users. We are struggling at the moment to find participants for most of these processes; we shouldn't make our task harder by limiting the users even further...--Eptalon (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to do with changes that affect users (be that ban discussions, RfXs and such like) then I'd agree, but we do that already. Anything involving a community process? Of course not. Goblin 22:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]

I respect all of the above views and reasoning. The counter argument is that a signon develops a reputation and credibilty. One would hope that DYK, GA, VGA involve the nominator placing his credibility on the line. Hence, a signon would facilitate that role. I agree that Wikipedia should be something that anyone can edit, and that the anonymity of signons should be protected. But of coures, anyone can get a signon without revealing a real world identity. I will not press the point and we will see what happens in the ongoing IP nominated peer reviews. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
No thank you! If you do that, I will stop making any good edits!-- (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious why you don't register. Makes it much easier to identify you and theres no loss. Minor or Prime 07:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to register. I like my number.-- (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there's no need to register. However, you're becoming fairly active and there are things you can't do without registering. Having to ask someone else to do those things causes more work for the other people here. Just a thought. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jus sayin' its possible to register with that number isn't it? As in User: Normandy (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find the one I'm thinking of (maybe its on en?) but this is close to what I was thinking: User:31.415.926.535 (GuD) Normandy (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im an IP, that means if I feel lazy, I've got a good excuse not to do reg-only tasks.-- (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a matter of privacy. We protect the identity of signons. With an IP, anyone can look up your real world identity. For example, if you write an article about someone, and he is angry about what you say, he can make trouble for you. We want you to write freely and responsibly without worrying about how other people (video game publishers) will react. Even with a signon, nobody can force you to do reg-only tasks. Racepacket (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It seems like 70% of the edits by new users are bound to be vandalism. Maybe theres a need to track the new user's contributions page more? Minor or Prime 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page for contributions by new user? I knew about the one for all new changes, but didn't know there was one that listed only new users. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theres a link at the top of the recent changes page. Minor or Prime 07:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an IP and fall into the 30%.-- (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo 4

How can I make this page without geting a QD or RfD? Any ideas?-- (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the article you have been adding is just to short. We need a little more content to give our readers more about the subject. Take a look at Gran Turismo. That article is still a stub, but it gives the reader more info about the topic. If you can maybe model your page off of that one, I am sure it will be able to stay. Good luck!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Jeff Mills has a QD A4. Please explain in simple English, how I can improve it before it gets deleted? QUICK!-- (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding some information to it? You can't just create an article with just two words. Put the facts inline like every other bio: "Jeff Mills" (dob 18 June 1963), born Detroit, Michigan is an American DJ and music producer." Then tell us why he's notable. Why he's famous. What has he done to make him deserve an article here. Maybe try sticking to making one really good article instead of loads of one-liners? Normandy (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! May I remove QD?-- (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't, because the notability issue isn't resolved. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? What do I have to do, in simple English, to stop this page from going forever?-- (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page does not say why the person is notable. You can look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) to see what "notable" means here. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So please give me an idea on what I need to add please.-- (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources referenced on English Wikipedia. Learn more about the subject of the article. Think about what a reader needs to know. Then make an outline, Then write the best article that you can using simple words and grammar. Racepacket (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many hours have I got to do that in?-- (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys you do realize by this point he is Trolling you right? -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda on the fence on this one, but I'll let him practise in my sandbox in the hope that he is genuine. WP:AGF DJSasso! :P Normandy (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF went out the window a week ago. We are on WP:DUCK now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuine. Thank you for assuming good faith.-- (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)I'm only pulling your leg, but I'm not entirely sure... We'll see soon enough anyway. I may end up eating humble pie, or my hat... Normandy (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
150% genuine. I regret doing bad things on Really regret it.:(-- (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page question

If a new IP user writes rubbish, should I use {{subst:test1}} or {{subst:Uw-vandalism1}}?-- (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page language

Should we be using simple English on talk pages as well as article pages here? Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should try to since the audience we cater too may require it to be, just like the articles. However, people tend to fall into normal English a lot on talk pages. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple english is preferred, but not mandatory. Try your best to keep your words simple on talk pages so that more people understand you. — RyanCross (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Testing template changes

Can someone tell me how to test changes to a template? I'm thinking I need to put the changed version somewhere, but how would I invoke it when it isn't in regular template space? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can invoke the template by just using {{}} as normal, but including the full namespace of the template. You can also 'force' a 'clear' of the Template: namespace by using : to precede the page name, though this should not be required for anything other than mainspace. Hope this helps. Goblin 01:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
Yes, that helped a lot. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki 1.18 deployment

MediaWiki is scheduled to be upgraded on this wiki Wednesday, September 21, 23:00-03:00 UTC. As you may know, MediaWiki is the wiki software developed by the Wikimedia community, and 1.18 is the upcoming version of the software that has been in development since December. More details about this upgrade can be found on the MediaWiki 1.18 announcement on We don't anticipate any problems, but if you do encounter any, please see the blog post for more information on how to report problems. Since this wiki will be one of the first to get the software, we're particularly interested in your experience with it. Thanks! -- mw:User:RobLa-WMF (local user page) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's info, I've reported a couple of things here. --Auntof6 03:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a bug through 1.18 too? Normandy (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What's the difference between {{Reflist}}, and <references/>? Thank's.-- (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing important really. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has to do with the formatting of the references. Try each one on a page and see what the differences are. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah one basically formats the references, while the other is bare HTML code. Either can be used. Some people prefer one over the other, however most people use reflist. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation "Answers"

Hi. :) I just wanted to let you all know that we are testing a new way for people to ask questions about the Wikimedia Foundation or ask for their help. If people like it and it helps, we'll keep it up. If not, we may stop using it.

You probably know already how the Wikimedia Foundation works, but in case you don't I want to let you know that they don't control Simple English Wikipedia or any other project. They can't help people settle arguments here or help if you are blocked here. If you find a software bug or want to ask for a software feature, you do that at Wikimedia's Bugzilla). These are questions about the Wikimedia Foundation itself or that only its staff can answer.

What happens to your question depends on what type of question it is. A lot of them will get answered for everyone to read at wmf:Answers. (So far, we've answered questions about money and what staff members do.) Some of them may get sent to other people who work for the Wikimedia Foundation or answered in email. If it's the kind of question that regular volunteers should handle, you might be sent to them instead.

If you want to ask a question, send it to The terms and more information are available at wmf:Answers/Process. Thanks! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I was going to start on an article about an album that is supposed to be released next year. However, it does not have a title. I have over 10 sources that states it will be released and two sources that gives me three confirmed tracks. Is it ok to create the article? BTW there's an article on it at enWP and esWP. Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the album. There are some that will generate enough press to already be notable before being released. But many will not have. If you can find articles about the album and not just track listings then its probably good to go. Other wise speculation on an upcoming album is generally crystalballing. -DJSasso (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When changing the most wanted articles can I add articles of importance in my view (like science articles, FAs on enWP, or other misc. articles) instead of articles on pro wrestlers that are technically "most wanted"? Or should I stick to Special:Wantedpages? Albacore (talk · changes) 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you're asking? I'm not sure I understand. I do know that Special:Wantedpages is just a list of redlinked articles, sorted in descending order by the number of links each one has. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone's honest opinion would be a better guide than that list, which is a badly though-out piece of software which should have been ditched long ago. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we try to have articles from different subject areas taken from the most wanted list. So if an athlete one is made then it is replaced with an athlete. If a science one is made then it is replaced with a science one etc. From the list that Auntof6 mentions. There used to be a better list than that one that was made by someones bot but I am not sure what happened to it. I think Chenzw used to make it. All that being said I don't think people would complain if you used FA articles from en. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ydennek's probation

Template help needed

{{Geobox}} and {{Coord}} do not mesh properly. Geobox is sending extra parameters to Coord, which Coord does not expect. So, the article page has an error message in red letters. However, they work well together on En Wikipedia. I can debug simple templates, but this seems to be a bit more complicated beyond my level of comfort. Could someone please take a look at this? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to work fine I think, atleast it does on the other infoboxes. Not sure why it is not now. I updated everything it uses to the most recent versions on en. Leads me to wonder about it being the mediawiki upgrade but I doubt it would be that. Your best bet to is contact someone from en that works on it regularly who knows the code of it and the infobox well. I doubt anyone here has in depth knowledge of it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind I think I found the issue...was a completely different template. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi everyone, I have a suggestion. Get rid of soft redirects. As I have been told multiple times, the Simple English Wikipedia is another Wikipedia in it's own right! The whole point in this wiki is to have the articles in Simple English. Soft redirects to the English Wikipedia defeat the purpose of this entire wiki. They are formally written and are not even close to simple. Pretty much all the pages with soft redirects are pages such as AutoWikiBrowser and Huggle. They should be written again here in simple form. The reason I haven't used my initiative and done it by myself is because I don't know if regular editors are permitted to make these pages... Other user's input on this suggestion would be appreciated. Orashmatash 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quit the opposite, soft redirects are very important. In cases where we aren't likely to ever have an article we point people the english version because its the most useful thing to do. AWB should always be a soft redirected as it is considered the central location to discuss it for all languages and we should not have our own page. As for Huggle we don't have the page because our wiki doesn't officially support Huggle since its a use at your own risk here. But yes there are cases where you could write simple versions for guidelines or policies if you wanted to. However, there are not many that we need that we don't already have. You are falling into a trap that many new users from en always fall into. Lets change how simple does things. It is like the first thing that almost every user who comes here does. I would suggest as a new user that you consider working on articles and avoiding the administrative crap for awhile....generally people gung ho about these sorts of things end up burning out and or getting chased out very quickly. There is a saying "if it isn't broke don't fix it". I think that applies heavily here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a new user at all. I just didn't see the point in having soft redirects for pages that could have been created here. I didn't know all these things. I have been on English Wikipedia for more than 1 year. I have been here for around 9 months. I mainly fight vandalism, create articles, review articles, and improve articles here. I never use ENWP any more. Orashmatash 16:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All but like 10 of your edits have come in less than a month. That makes you a brand new user. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's because before this month I was only active on English. The only reason my account was registered here in the first place was because I accidentally clicked the link on the main page. I decided to help out a bit, but I went back to EN. Eventually, I got extremely fed up with EN and moved here. Anyway, this is completely besides the point I made. I just didn't see the point in soft redirects, but this can now be closed because I have been given an explanation as to why they are here. Resolved. Orashmatash 16:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Can someone please move The Shire (Middle-Earth) to the correct spelling Shire (Middle-earth)? I already asked a month ago and it was apparently confirmed, but never got completed. -Winterkind (talk)

 Done -Barras (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please move Objective Caml to the new official name OCaml? Reference: . --Rinaku (t · c) 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think however that the article would need a little extending...--Eptalon (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josip Broz Tito

The article on Josip Broz Tito is often the target of POV edits. There are some new IP edits today which I find a bit suspicious. There are citations to books on google, but the relevant page numbers are not available for viewing, and a couple where the content is available seem to be quite extreme. A "fact" template put on a sentence that Tito was a member of the NKVD was removed without evidence being provided. My quick internet search suggests this is a highly dubious claim. Could a few people have a look at the recent changes, as my view is they are POV and need reverting.--Peterdownunder (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's the same POV edit as the past being restored. I've reverted. If anyone sees more edits like this, please semi-protect the page. Only (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new main page

I've made a proposed new main page at Main Page/Sandbox. Our current main page looks too unprofessional for an encyclopedia IMO. Changes include:

  • Including a GA section on the main page to offer variety of content.
  • Cutting down on the laundry list of other languages.
  • Aligning the header left.
  • Removing the blue and replacing with gray, as well as removing the borders.
  • Other various, minor edits (such as combining sentences on the sister projects portal).

Opinions on the proposed new main page? Albacore (talk · changes) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments on my part:
- I like the blue on the current Main Page, but that may be because I'm a color junkie.
- I think it's a good idea to cut down on the number of other Wikipedias listed, but we should probably keep the links to the full list of Wikipedias.
- I mainly have a problem with aligning the header to the left, as on my abnormally large widescreen monitor, there's a lot of white space on the right side. Perhaps some of the information could be aligned to the left (like EN Wikipedia) or the centering could be kept? [+piccolo] 00:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of cutting down on the languages. But I like the look and layout of the current one much better. And two areas for GAs to show up in is a bit of overkill. -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely like reducing the number of other languages at the bottom. It would be good to have either a link to the full list or a drop-down box containing the rest of them.
I don't care for the gray. Would a darker blue look more professional? I also prefer the centered heading. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goody, it's this debate again I support a GA section or just a brief summary of one/two articles even. We'd have to ensure that the articles are of decent standard, some have probably slipped slightly. I would really like to address the matter of colour scheme. The current one is boring, not catchy at all, the only time I look at it is as I'm passing having been lazy and just putting "simple:" into the search box to switch wikis. But not gray please. I also really think a picture of the [decide period] would really help. Link it to an article maybe? fr33kman 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of 'picture of the [period]'. Yes, there should be mention and link to an article. I'm not turned on by the GAs idea; I'd prefer an 'interesting article' section which would include the 'pic of the [?month]'. 'Interesting articles' and 'pics' could be selected by a process like DYK. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the GA section. Please consider adding a new section to give links to a half a dozen recent "books." I think that most users do not know about or understand books, and that they should be promoted as a good way of utilizing the material in the wiki. Racepacket (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with GAs being mixed in with the VGAs. But having two separate sections is a bit much and the way they are labelled in the mock up make it look like the GA articles are better than the VGAs above. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of comments from me. Most importantly, I'd actually oppose anything being done to the Main Page at the moment simply because content is getting ignored and it's yet another excuse to stop doing what we're here to do and for people to just comment on this or work on an MP instead. Not what we need right now when there are plenty of articles in the P(V)GA queues, one article up at PAD and DYK struggling once more. I'd also be opposed to using GAs on the Main Page simply because it will likely create confusion and is also not our 'best' content - VGAs are. GAs have never been intended for going on the front page and so may not be up to standard, and I doubt we have the time nor manpower to go through every single one to get it up to scratch that would be required. As for the actual mockup, it looks plain, bland and boring - not really inviting into the site. I'm still a fan of the current main page, and think it suits the site even more since Vector was made the default skin for all users. The mockup is - for my liking, at least - too MonoBookish, and that's something to leave behind if the WMF are wanting to give the place a new look. But just my 2p. Goblin 22:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]

I don't like the header alignment. I think it leaves a bit too much white to the right-hand-side. Maybe if you want to align the header like that, you could put in [[File:Bouncywikilogo.gif]]? It will at least fill up some space... I agree with the change of colour and the removal of the borders, but maybe it makes it look a bit... Boring? That's all my input. Orashmatash 13:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Chocolate![reply]

So from this we can safely change the language links to the top 100,000 and leave the links at the bottom, and change "100,000 +" and the lot to "100,000 articles or more"? Albacore (talk · changes) 01:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Jobs

...died. Please moniter his page and his talk page. Would support a silverlock (semi-protection) if it is thrice vandalized in the next few hrs Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I view high traffic pages as a chance for new editors to get involved, not as silverlock targets. Kansan (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we've never really had an issue with edit wars or vandalism regarding the recent death issue here. It tends to get the article expanded a bit. (And, god, isn't that a terrible thing to say really?) :( fr33kman 02:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great, I'm learning news from WP:ST now... Normandy (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, PBP has been told many times that situations like this are prime time for attracting new editors and taking advantage of drive by editors contributions. And every time he comes back again suggesting we lock the page that is currently a hot topic. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...And it's been locked. DJ, cut the condescension...I believe that the potential for new editors (which I believe isn't proven) is outweighed by the threat of vandalism and the need for the page to be clean as it will be viewed much more than before (both of which can bew proven fairly easily). I also believe that, in general, we are much too lax in protection...I have found vandalism that wasn't cleaned up for months, and I think it is a waste of the community's time to clean up vandalism when they could be creating articles Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...And its being unlocked. Er actually already expired. Vandalism is a very very very minor threat compared to gaining article increases by new and unregistered users which can easily be seen by how many articles grow in size while in such situations. Secondly you know what wastes more editors time? Having to respond to you crying wolf every time any article even mildly gets any attention. -DJSasso (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Crying wolf"? I'm entitled to my opinion, my opinion is based in fact (and yours isn't, really, as far as I can see), and I'm going to keep suggesting silverlocks for high-profile and vandalized pages because it's the way I believe we should operate. How come your opinion is perfectly valid while mine is "crying wolf"? Because you get a carteblanche to NPA? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is crying wolf. Almost every time you have come begging for protection the articles have had zero or close to zero vandalism edits. Protection is for actual incidents that are happening. Frankly every time you come here doing this you are making pointy arguments. The community has time and again told you that is not what it wants. And yes I am aware you believe it would be better to damage the reputation of wikipedia by protecting high profile articles when lots of eyes are on them and people are expecting to be able to edit them in good faith. Thus being completely against our aim of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -DJSasso (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, WP:ANYONE means "anyone can vandalize and have someone take time cleaning it up which would be better spent writing articles". And I'm not sure I can abide by that. If anyone can edit, anyone can also propose protection without you using weasel words in opposition to it...and I will continue to do so if I see fit. From my experience here, much of the content (particularly in the article in question) added after a death is added by already-established editors, not by new editors as you claim. New editors are much in the minority when compared to new readers who just want to read articles...and that is. You're essentially screwing over both non-editors (who just want to read the article) and already-established editors (who have to waste their time cleaning up the mess) for the sake of a very, very, few (if any at all) new editors. That's not right, and that's what damages our reputation...having bad and vandalized articles. Not sure where you're getting that having silverlocked articles damages our reputation or is a "very minor problem"; zilcho evidence for that. What damages our reputation, as either your or Fr33k said, is that we are way too lax on vandalism (this has been a reason mentioned in proposing shutting this WP down), and our comparative lack of silver- and goldlocked articles is a crucial part of that. And you claim I do this often...I've made about ten RFPP proposals in two and a half years. Every single one of them was on a BLP, recent death, or controversial topic; every one of them had been vandalized; and every one of them has an indef silverlock on the big boy. And this is hardly the most protectionist anybody's ever gotten...recall that some people on EN supported a proposal to silverlock all BLPs! Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly can continue to do as you see fit. And you will continue to be called on it every time. If you want to continually waste editors time all the more power to you. But don't get upset when people call you on it. IPs actually account for something like 95% of all non-vandalism edits to the wiki. So no, regular editors aren't the ones who do the most improvement on the wiki. Vandalism here while not always caught right away is usually caught immediately especially on high visibility articles like the ones you keep suggesting get protected. Its not the high visibility articles that are going to have vandalism missed simply because everyone is watching them. Its the articles that don't have high visibility that get vandalism missed. As for what en has or does not have. We aren't en, we don't have the sheer numbers of registered editors here that they do. We can't as easily take the hit to editing as much as they can. Not sure where you get the idea we are lax on vandalism, that isn't even remotely true. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Djsasso. We are definitely not "lax" on vandalism here, in fact, I would say that because of the community's active status, vandalism is reverted 2 minutes at the most after it is done, which I will admit is very good. PBB, I do see where you are coming from when you requested the protection. It was to prevent vandalism to it, understandable. However, protecting the page eliminates the possible good edits that come from IP users, and I have witnessed a lot of constructive and AGF edits by IP editors, most of whom just want to help the community. I will add, however, that most vandals here edit with an IP, but most vandalism here is done by the same few IP's and accounts, so actually, the percentages of IP vandals is pretty low... Orashmatash 18:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Wikipedia![reply]

Copy-pasted articles

Hi, I just wanted to bring attention to the huge amount of copy-pasted articles here. The reason I am bringing this up is because today alone, I have QD'd about 5, 6, 7, which is not very good. The only way I can see of reducing these is maybe blocking users who repeatedly copy-paste articles, because if this continues, we run the risk of having the entire wiki deleted for basically being a copy of EN. Don't get me wrong, a vast majority of articles here are actually simple, but the amount of copy-pasted articles is a bit too high for my liking. Orashmatash 18:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Sleeping![reply]

However imo if EN has an article at a GA or FA then you're going to write near enough the same stuff but simplified. So to start an article C&P is a good way to get one going, but I see your point if it's left. Helpersimples (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually how most of our articles are started. Now if they stay as an exact copy for awhile they generally get deleted (unless they are already simple and no changes are needed). But as long as you follow the rules for putting in your edit summary or on the talk page that its a copy then its ok to copy over. -DJSasso (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's how most of our articles are started, but they should be simplified before they're saved, otherwise it qualifies for QD. All of my articles are from ENWP as well, but I simplified them before saving. --Orashmatash 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Rollback![reply]

Rename this page

Please move "Akbar agha" to the correct capitalization "Akbar Agha". Thanks. JoeLord3 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)JoeLord3[reply]

There is not a page with that title on this Wikipedia. --Orashmatash 18:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I like... Chemistry![reply]

This subject is controversial.

Others may want to review my sentences.

Is it helpful that the inline notes include hidden text excerpts? --Tenmei (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Removal of WP:Peer Review

Closed as Peer Review removed. Yes, I'm involved. Yes, I was the one that proposed this. But, again, I don't care. It's run a week, the norm for this type of discussion, and it has a 9/3 consensus, or 2/3rds in aupport; a majority. Peer Review will be redirected to WP:GA from this time on, and for it to re-appear we'll require a community discussion and consensus. Sorted. Goblin 02:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey![reply]