Wikipedia talk:Simple talk/Archive

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussions starting in 2003

2003/10/23

Hi. I made a new page called TalkTalkTalk. I made it because I don't know which pages are the "right" pages to talk about many things, so I'm just going to copy things and talk about them here. I hope this doesn't cause any problems for anybody -- RJ208104.user.veloxzone.com.br

Is this sort of a place for general discussions that are not specific to articles? Sort of like the mailing list? If so, I think that's probably a good idea. Angela
Yes, good idea. We might want to archive it every day to TalkTalkTalk/031023 or something, so it's easy to find the TTT from a given day.
I don't know if it'll need doing daily but we can see - if it reaches 32kb limits each day then fair enough. Angela
If you wait for it to hit 32kb, then, you will be archiving at some time other than the day boundary. This is fine if you still make the archive day by day, and perhaps redirect multiple days to one page?
Or maybe we could have a mailing list! Angela


Now you are trolling. ;-) It's quite obvious that the mailing list approach divides "Who edits" from "who decides", since two different technologies and protocols are used. Many of the best contributors at the Wikipedias do not participate on mailing lists as a matter of principle, and resent decisions made in another medium being applied here when a perfectly good alternative way (like this TalkTalkTalk page) can exist.
Many, like the Cunctator, have said that a mailing list only serves a GodKing, and doesn't serve the actual users, nor the contributors who care most about the users. I tend to agree.
mailing lists should be ignored. they divide contributors from deciders, encourage cabals, and have generally failed as a way to govern
Let's give RJxxx.br 's idea a chance!

Everybody can use this page. If you copy something here, please say where it came from.


If you think that something "should" be on another page, please make a link to that page.

      • DON'T take things off of this page -- the idea is that things should be easy to find here. *** -- -- RJ208104.user.veloxzone.
But if they're ABOUT other things, they need to be in those TALK pages, not here. Otherwise people concerned with those things can't find them. They are only "easy to find here" for the day they appear here, before the talk gets archived.

Example:

Extended discussion of whether titles can be in Simple English was moved to Simple English Staging/Talk. It came originally from Computer/Talk.

The point:

"We can't restrict titles to only being in Simple English - that would make it impossible to call things by the same names here as they are called in Full English." (hlfx47-147.ns.sympatico.ca)

Good point! I definitely agree with this! -- RJ208104.user.veloxzone.com.br

More at Simple English Staging/Talk.

How's that? We indicate where it's from, and where more of it is discussed.

Question inspired by recent edits to Cabal

For hlfx47-147.ns.sympatico.ca -- Please tell me: Why do you use so many words and phrases (and even make pages about things!) that aren't Basic English, probably aren't any kind of Simple English, and aren't even common in Full English? Surely these things aren't the most important for Simple English Users to read about here?? -- RJ208104.user.veloxzone.com.br

I am trying to avoid assuming anything about Simple English Users other than what is written down as a guess about them now. If you want to change my assumptions, then just edit that article, adding better statistics on non-English people.
The Simple English Reading and Simple English Staging strategy are well enough explained. They imply trying to do the MOST COMPLEX ARTICLES first, to figure out where the boundary between Full English and Simple English are. When it's clear what goes to Full and what stays at Simple, and each has ended up in its right place, and we have a good way to know when to link BETWEEN them, the job here will be much clearer to all of us. It will be to explain all the simple topics that are mentioned and required to understand those "boundary" topics.
Also, MOST IMPORTANT, the concepts that are required for Simple English Wikipedia governance must at least be ATTEMPTED in something as close to Simple as we can manage, right now, so that people who speak English as a second language can participate in working out rules. That means often explaining ideas to them like cabal, God's eye view, systemic bias, and of course neutral point of view. We have no choice but to explain these in SOME way. So better to do it in an official article we can subject to Simple English Editor's discipline, rather than one user at a time in talk or something.
This idea, that everything that is important to govern something must be explained and discussed WITHIN THE SAME RULES as that thing applies to things outside itself, is reflexivity. That is not a Simple English word, no, but if you don't learn that word, you will think a lot of arbitrary decisions are being made and forced on you when in fact it is an attempt to keep other kinds of arbitrary decisions (like a cabal) out of the picture, so the project runs itself better. And that is fairer to all. This TalkTalkTalk page is an example - it lets the people here use the same methods to debate the SEW, as they are using to write it. That is reflexivity. Now that you know that word, you can find it on the net and read about it, and come back and challenge what I say about it. So you have more power this way than if I avoid that complex word.

(Going offline now -- probably until tomorrow. Ciao. -- RJ208104.user.veloxzone.com.br )

ok, good work today, especially getting this page going.

No TalkTalkTalk on 2003/10/24 so this archive is also the TalkTalkTalk/to_031024

on 2003/10/25

Today's TTT issues:

Please make articles complete before you try to make them "simple". If you don't, then they can be as simple as you like, but, they just get expanded with terms that you didn't use, and, then, they have to be simplified again.

While a complete article that is too complex can be simplified without losing content in one process over time, it requires a lot more luck to get the article right randomly expanding it to be more complete and cutting it back to read more simply...

No! Articles do not have to be complete. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Angela


My vote for "Simple" before "complete". I think that all Wikipedia articles may be assumed to be *never* really "complete", and that working on the basis of trying to make them so is basically against the idea of Wikipedia. -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br


It's true they are never complete. But you can't "vote" on an issue that is a constraint. It's fairly obvious that if you don't make an effort to completeness before simplifying, the article never gets to a point of coherence, and the right level of language and balance with more complex language and Simple English Staging never gets settled. So this isn't something you vote on, it's something you adopt as a deliberate choice. SEW is still a Wikipedia. One has to ask the same scope and factoring questions. And one has to ask them before one asks vocabulary questions.
Furthermore, we know that historically new articles (in the other Wikipedias) are usually fiercely edited and re-edited for a while before settling down. The state of "relatively complete" is achieved by consensus rather than fiat. -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br
*Wikipedia articles are *not* edited "randomly" (except in vandalism, a small percentage of cases and not what we're talking about here), but rather by consensus among many users.* -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br
OK, I don't mean to suggest it's really "random", but it's not a "consensus" if it's just edit wars of attrition either... which is more common than either of you are admitting. NPOV doesn't solve all problems. In many ways it is just a gateway for more problems, subtler ones.

I think it would be easy to argrue that *everything* on Wikipedia is in some sense done by "wars of attrition", and/or that there is a spectrum rather than an opposition between "consensus" and "edit war". -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br

"NPOV doesn't solve all problems. In many ways it is just a gateway for more problems, subtler ones." -- Maybe so. But nothing *does* solve all problems, and the attempt to be NPOV is one of the core Wikipedia values. If we don't all try for NPOV, we won't accomplish much -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br

I agree it's a bit elitist to be complete and complex before one lets those who only understand Simple English in. But they aren't the primary contributors. So trying to make articles in progress simpler, before they are properly scoped, named, factored and links settled, is really false economy. It's counter-productive, since someone else loses the clues they needed to finish the article, and may even have to add back links removed in a "simplifying" drive. I can see "simplify" becoming as political as "neutralize" on some other Wikipedias has become... A Random Troll

"I agree it's a bit elitist to be complete and complex before one lets those who only understand Simple English in. But they aren't the primary contributors." -- This sounds *quite* elitist to me. We don't "let" those who only understand Simple English in. SEWiki users, contributors, and editors are de facto anybody who can get to a WWW-capable terminal, can use it, and stumbles across this site. -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br

True, but we can and should make some reasonable assumptions about who those people are, using statistics. Simple English Users does just that. Please add probabilities of them getting to a WWW-capable web terminal, if you can find this data. It does exist. And it's not our "permission" that matters, it's the probability that they will feel technically and culturally comfortable editing pages. Not every culture teaches people to be bold in challenging what appear to be "expert" opinions.

"I can see "simplify" becoming as political as "neutralize" on some other Wikipedias has become..." -- ARTroll, I'm not familiar with this "neutralize" issue. Can you give a few words of explanation? Thanks. -- RJ092191.user.veloxzone.com.br

Basically the way things get neutralized is not itself neutral. It depends on people who share some point of view like most obviously "the Internet is good, the WWW is good, Wikipedia is very good," and maybe some ideas like "progress is good, English is a good language to learn, mathematics is very important, and physics is the most important and basic knowledge about reality." When you think about it, that's so far from neutral it's a joke. It looks nothing like the way ordinary people in the world think. So we know that a lot of things require some political effort to neutralize and education of people who see no problem with this mind-set. One camp at Wikipedia wants to ignore this issue. Another camp thinks its the most important thing. It's kind of a war in some ways. A lot of m:factionalism is resulting from it. You should read http://meta.wikipedia.org arguments on this especially http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/power_structure and etc.

I think "neutralise" means to make something NPOV.

But who judges when it *is*? You have lots of unattributed statements assumed to be true in articles like en:particle physics. No one demands that these be attributed in detail. However much LESS controversial statements in ecology get challenged all the time. A great example of the double standard is that en:carrying capacity was a disambiguation page that tried to reserve space for non-existent ab/uses of that term for thigns like traffic management, while en:Standard Model just bald-facedly steals those basic words to talk about particle physics. Think about it. This is the most blantant POV possible. Even worse battles go on over issues like en:truth and en:knowledge. Western philosophers assume they can just monopolize those concepts, keeping out anything said after 1960 or by disadvantaged people or groups, by religion, or even Western philosophers who challenge the traditional beliefs (like truth being something you can write down at all, or knowledge being not tied to spatial reality or the senses or cognition). Try to write anything coherent about this, and it gets attacked regularly with no respect for process (mass cuts and unjustified reverts from anonymous parties constantly shifting IP numbers). Think about it. This is a much worse neutrality problem than a few adjectives.
See SEUS_Juan_looks_at_the_sky for a Simple English User Story about the different mind-sets that a typical user might have to balance and deal with, and why we should be careful about this balancing in our articles.

I think articles should be written as simply as possible from the start.

Right. But no simpler! Some topics just require more complex language than others, which is why Simple English Staging matters so much.

In theory there should never be any complex english anywhere on the site.

Let's set a target date by which all articles must be in Simple English as we THEN understand it. But let's not try to start by tying up our brains. We need to be able to approximate and get it right later.

These talk pages should all be in simple english, but i think we all need to become more familar with it before we can use it without losing the art of conversation. -- Tango

True. Same issue. So set another target date by which talk must be in SE to get answered. ;-)

The name for the Pump

As we do not yet have a village pump, I shall ask this here. What should the village pump be called? (In the English Wikipedia, the village pump is used for asking questions).

Village pump makes no sense in English, let alone simple English. A lot of other languages are using names based aound cafes. (Le Bistro, y caffi etc). Any thoughts on what to call it here?

Angela. 20 August, 03:16 BST

"Page where people speak back and forth about the simple Wikipedia" -Hehe. I dunno -- On Ar.Wiki (glad you joined, BTW - It was pretty lonely there..) I named it the "Community Oasis." Is "chat" a simple word? "Talk" would be the simplest, while discussion, and communication might follow after. "Simple Talk"? Easy chat? Some long words are actully simple, while others are complex - I think you're right that we should avoid dealing in metaphors as theyre an abstraction.

  • I wouldn't suggest talk and that will get confused with talk about the articles. How about "questions" or "ask a question"? Angela.
I personnaly liked the Market Place as a place to visit when we want, and shop for something like an answer. Ant
I would not call it questions because it is also for remarks, proposals, etc. Avoiding the usual metaphor, because a metaphor is not really simple, I like Simple talk; the only possible confusion is with Simple/Talk, when we have an article called Simple, but that is not so serious. Patrick.
Something straightforward: "Helps and concerns/worries/ideas/X".
The problem with metaphors like "Village Pump" is that it was adequately metaphorically to the creator and those around him at that time (i.e., villagers gather around the pump to whatnot), but to most other people now, it's just a too poetic metaphor. We wouldn't want our metaphor to end up that way. --Menchi, August 20, 2003
I like the suggestion of "simple talk" as it has a double meaning of both talk that is written in a simple language and it is talk about the simple English Wikipedia. Angela

I like it too.//我喜欢也是。 -Stevertigo

Why not stick with it then? Ain't broke: don't fix--BozMo|talk 11:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

      • If the "simple English" wikipedia is to live up to its "simple" name then a good name for a "village pump" would be "The place for talking it over", or the "Talking_it_over" page, simple, descriptive, easily grasped (although somewhat plain, of course, but along the lines of BASIC English). Jay B. ILVI

I don't have any idea about the village pump, may be an object or machine ? " sukor06 "

How about, "Simple chat"? Or "Simple Talk". Opp, forgot to sign. Terryeo (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is many years old. Its already called Simple Talk... -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2005

WikiProject/(sub)Portal

Hi, i miss in the SimpleWikipedia the possibility to found a portal/project on a topic/area. Is this something only the "full" Wikipedias(these in "normal" languages) should have, or can we integrate it somehow in the SimpleWikipedia? I don't know how to realize it, but if this would be possible, I will found a project and/or portal for mathematics, but I would be happy if there were somebody, who knows more about maths, to help continuosly. Of course it would be good, if every big (or to-be-big) area will be found by somebody (or better more than one person) who will some sort of look after this area. sternchen14.July2005 ps: how can I get a signature with a link to my userpage without having to type it in?

Discussions starting in 2006

Simple

I find writing in Simple is really a difficult task. But, I will do it for sure. --Bhadani 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I thought the intro looked a bit unclean, so I've used the style from the English Wikipedia Village pump, I think it looks alright. What do you think? T. Moitie - Talk - Esperanza 20:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2007

No table of contents?

Why do neither of these pages have table of contents? I don't think they should be omitted. T. Moitie|Talk|Esperanza 02:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, Moitie, but in general, only those pages have a table of contents (TOC) by default, which have enough number of sections (headings) in them (I think the number was 4 but I'm not sure.)
In order to force a TOC to appear on a page, no matter it has only one section, you can add __TOC__ to its top.
In order to prohibit a TOC to appear on a page, no matter it has many sections, you can add __NOTOC__ to its top.
Hope it helps, - Huji reply 17:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Running simple wiki

In order to be administrator here, you must be on big one, how to apply for this one? How often must one reply and be active on both wikis? — This unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.23 (talk • contribs) .

You do not have to be an administrator (or even an editor) on the English Wikipedia to become one on Simple English. There are no rules on how often a person needs to post, how much they must post, or how long they have been posting for. Each person who applies for administrator is voted on by the other editors. Because each person has a different standard on how they vote, it is advisable to not bother to try for admin until you have at least around 1k edits, have been active here for 3 months, and have shown a good understanding of the guidelines and policies. Many people voting will not consider supporting the request unless the person has at least those qualifications (exceptions do happen though). To request to be an admin, see Wikipedia:Administrators and bureaucrats -- Creol(talk) 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2008

ISBN

Hi everyone! I'm Arizza, a writer at our student publication here at University of the East (Philippines)... Anyone! We have this DAWN INVESTIGATIVE BUREAU, and we're investigating the anomalies happenning in our school with regards to the books their issueing in the students... Books dont have their ISBN or International Standard Book Number. May I know the SIGNIFICANCE OF ISBN? Pls help me,,, help us... Thank you!

Have a look at the article "International Standard Book Number". — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Photographic Memories

I am hoping someone with a photographic memory happened to see my article on Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. Earlier this morning, I started the article, specifying right there in the article that it was the home of Thomas Jefferson.

I saved my first draft, went to the bathroom, and came back and checked to see if you have an article on Thomas Jefferson. (You do, which is nice because for those of you who do not know, he was arguably one of a handful of the most famous presidents of the USA, which is a fairly large country in North America (at least in terms of land area).

Anywho...... I wanted to wikify my article to Thomas Jefferson, but did not wish to create a red link. So I thought it prudent to take the time to check first whether you actually had an article already on Jefferson. But when I went back to open my article on Poplar Forest, the home which Jefferson built, the article had vanished. I was stunned to find it in the deletion log, reason given: not notable. (Deletion log); 03:29 . . Chenzw (Talk | changes) deleted "Poplar forest" (QD A4: The article does not show notability)

Did anyone happen to see and read my incarnation of the now deleted article? I know it was only up at this site for about three minutes, so I guess there is not much chance anyone saw it, but if you DID see it, and you happen to have a photographic memory, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send me the text that I wrote.

I did not recreate the article right then and there (when this info would have been fresh in my mind), because I know it is against the rules to recreate an article which has already been deleted, for whatever reason. BUT.........Now someone ELSE has started the article again, which I guess is another violation of policy, but I won't get in to that matter. Anyway, this guy copy and pasted a very small amount of material from wikipedia and then abandoned the article. And not just to go to the bathroom either. It has been hours and the guy has not been back.

At this point, no one seems to be arguing the notability of this historic presidential residence. I am not sure what happened between the moment the article was deleted for being not notable, and the moment 31 minutes later when it was started again with new information copied and pasted from the wikipedia article on Poplar Forest. But I guess the article will stay. If it is notable enough for Wikipedia, possibly it might fly also at Simple Wikipedia. In fact someone has asked me to please add my information to that other guy's article, stating that the three people working on or deleting and recreating and adding wikipedia stuff, and pics, or protecting that article have not been to this historic landmark.... and I have and therefore I am in the best position to make that article a little tiny bit better.

So again, if someone can remember that text I wrote, please send it to me and maybe not having lost my little bit of work will help me feel better about expanding on that article those guys got started on.

Bumberspand (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone need photographic memory? Had you just asked politely, any admin could have easily provided you with the information from the article. Instead of constant complaining, a simple request would have solved the problem. As of now, there is a copy of the article in your user space as it was originally written (including factual errors, total lack of formatting and other problems). -- Creol(talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I will be sure not to submit any more articles unless they are absolutely complete and perfect in every way. This is all I can do for now, though. (I have dug all morning and finally figured out what you meant by my userspace, and I got my original draft and incorporated it into the article for you. You have a very nice website here and I hope you find a lot of eager people who want to work on it and give their valuable time to learning how to contribute here.

Bumberspand (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to be sarcastic. Microchip 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How was that sarcastic? I could not find any sarcasticness in that last message before yours that was sarcastic. Cheers, Razorflame 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The "absolutely perfect and complete in every single way". Microchip 17:08, Thursday, June 19 2008 Utc

Images

Just curious, but why can't images be added to this Wiki? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation's policy is free content only. Only the English Wikipedia allows any fair use; everywhere else, it has to be free. It's a lot easier, faster, and saves resources to have all people upload free images to the Commons, where any wiki can use it, instead of just a specific Wikipedia, since only that Wikipedia can use it. Yeah, it sucks, the video game articles dont' look as pretty without the box art. Cassandra 05:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It also makes it easier for other Wikipedias to use our articles. --Werdan7T @ 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, when the Simple Wiki expands enough, I think that the fair use policy for images should allow for images to be allowed here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've always rather hoped that English Wikipedia would follow the other Wikipedias and remove "fair use". It a very US specific thing, and I think Simple English Wikipedia is trying to be diverse. As it stands a large proportion of non-US editors may technically breaking the laws of their own country by uploading. Hippopotamus (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the fair use ban idea is that video game articles would take the full brunt of its effect. For instance, without an image of, say, Zack & Wiki, it would be very hard for the reader to visualize what the game looks like. There are really no free use images for video games (with the exception of some very meh images that people are forced to use, such as the G&W SMB image for Super Mario Bros., which the article doesn't even cover), so pretty much any and every video game article looks very empty and plain. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but I guess it's just the reality of copyright. What I would be in favor of is commons allowing free, but "not for commercial use" images... You could always contact the game companies and ask if they'll release a single screenshot under GFDL or Creative Commons. They might agree, it's effectively free advertising after all... Hippopotamus (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's just a darn shame how hard it is to get good images. Just two questions - is a screenshot of a commercial free use, and if I get permission to use a picture of an arcade machine by the person who took it, does it qualify as free use? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, screenshot of a commercial is not free use. Still copyrighted to the person who made the TV commercial. Arcade machines are OK, but those only help for arcade games, and that's been a dying breed for about ten years now. Cassandra 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And if the game itself is the focus of the image, it could be considered a derivative work, which isn't allowed on Commons. —Giggy 06:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2009

Friendly note.

I've pasted a link to this discussion in the IRC channel, in order to let folks know about the discussion. I made no recommendations to what I think people should say, all I did was post the link. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another friendly note

I've pasted a link to this discussion in the IRC channel, in order to let folks know about the discussion. I made no recommendations to what I think people should say, all I did was post the link. I'm noting here for transparency. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Didn't need posting 2) Why not just post it in that discussion? 3) [[Wikipedia:Simple talk#Permission_request-Importers]] is a nicer looking wikimarkup ツ MC8 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm concerned that there may not be enough participants in the discussion. I posted on the talk page because this has nothing to do with the permission or the candidate. Just the process. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You're also using Wikipedia talk:Simple talk, not Wikipedia:Simple talk... MC8 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

This is the fist time that i write to Wikipedia. I need to improve my English but I don't know how to do it. I try to find some methode in the internet to get the solution. May this web can help me to improve it by myselfe. So,I try to write something in to this page. I need you help to check this massage and i need someone to be my friend and chat with me thogether. thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewave44 (talkcontribs)

You get all help you need. Good luck and happy editing. Barras (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving discussions

Please for the love of everything simple, stop placing {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} to active discussions. Stopping or attempting to quell a discussion almost never works. Please stop it. If I have done this to an active discussion in the past, I wholeheartedly apologise and pledge that I will never do this again. Please stop. I promise that if I have comments, I'll just add them directly below the archived discussion. Discussion is good. Discussion is collaboration. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What, archiving a thread that's pulling our community away from the encyclopedia is a bad thing? The discussion has gone past constructive. Shappy talk 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

SIMPLE TALK?

When I came to this page, I became immediatley confused...there is a lot of jargon, and a lot of discussion, but nothing of much use to the average layman. Perhaps that could chage, or you could at least rename the page to something less misleading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jailman3 (talkcontribs)

The first line says: "This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia." I'm not sure what you are expecting on that page. It is not for the average person to read; it is for active editors to talk about the project. If you would like to edit the Wikipedia but the discussion is too hard for you to read, please tell the person you are talking with so they can use Simple English. We try to use Simple English on that page, but sometimes we forget. EhJJTALK 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2010

RUSSIAN AIRPORT NAMES - VOSTOCHNY IS IN ERROR

I maintain a database of airports around the world. I'm currently updating the Russian airports due to the time zone changes in Russia. I noticed that there are many airports in Wikipedia with the same name: VOSTOCHNY. My instinct told me that its too many of the same name, so I did a quick check and found that VOSTOCHNY means EASTERN. Thus this needs to be changed. I'm too busy to handle this, since I work two jobs. Also, this should be reviewed by someone with good skills in both English and Russian, as there are problably many other such "errors" in Wikipedia. Especially since Russian airports tend to be named by the direct they are from the nearest city.

Also, you make it danged hard to "contact" anyone with Wikipedia. I was about ready to quit search after 15 minutes. I have contributed changes in the past to Wikipedia (see AFTN / SITA). But just don't have the time on this one; especially since it needs more research by someone more qualified than me.

Dave B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.88.80 (talkcontribs)

Hello Dave B, first of all, please do not leave email addresses on Wiki pages. If you want to be contacted, create an account, and set an email address, so people can contact you (I have removed the version of the page which contained your email address). Secondly, this is Simple English Wikipedia. We currently have between 50.000 and 60.000 pages. I doubt many of them will be about Russian Airports. You would really need to contact the team et enwp (different people). You might also want to leave such a message on the Simple Talk] page itself, not the page about talking about the page. Hope this helps. --Eptalon (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A FRIENDLY OBSERVATION

Simple wikipedia seems the same as wikipedia. Is it?

It is another Wikipedia, like the English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. Kansan (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It is written in simple English. So it says "Rust is a chemical compound." in the first sentence instead of "Rust is a chemical compound derived from the oxidation of iron in a moist environment" which is harder to understand. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2011

Question

what does it mean when you get a hearing status conference date to appear for eviction? --05:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)70.187.149.2 (talk)

Please see the reply I left at User talk:Pderosa1. EhJJTALK 06:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Active users

Pages which can be reached via the main page should be checked occasionally. I see the 'Active users' page needs updating. It should not include users who are no longer regulars, or who are banned.(!) Some others could add themselves if appropriate (Ep? Albacore? PeterDU?...). Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's a wiki, feel free to remove inactive people or banned users. This shouldn't be a problem. As for adding some others, just poke them on their talk page. -Barras (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
It might not be such a great idea to spam lots of users pages. Most (if not all) active users will see this thread I'd think...? Ydennek (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought that page was a bit silly because a wiki is in such flux all the time trying to keep it updated is really not all that realistic. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I doubt that long-term contributors like Epty, PDU, you and so on quickly disappear. There are some people on the list who are there for quite some time already. -Barras (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh I know. I can see how it could be useful. Perhaps the name should be changed from Active Users to something along the lines of people willing to help. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've never added myself to the list because it would all be inaccurate. I edit when I have time, not at certain hours of the day. So, having myself listed as active, and then not being here, would just lead to new users being confused. "It says he is supposed to be active, but he isn't!" is what I fear would happen. A much better way to see who is active is to check RC and ask any questions to a person who you see editing.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was going to suggest that RC is the best way to see who is active at any given moment. EVula // talk // // 14:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeah that pretty much sums up why I don't put myself on there. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe make it a list of active users in general with pointing to the time zone they life? Easier than that table and maybe more useful... -Barras (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes I think that would be more useful.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
For completeness, there's also User:American Eagle/AU, which is referenced from Category:Active Wikipedians. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2012

BG

Hello, Could someone please tell me what BG means? I found it it this context - Actually I support BG's idea. Thank you. — This unsigned comment was added by Millingva (talk • changes).

It is someones nickname. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

It took me a while to find the Administrators' noticeboard. Maybe a link to it should be included in Wikipedia:Simple talk/header. Boivie (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We had it on the sidebar for a while but it was taken off. It probably should replace the link to requesting to be an admin as if an editor needs help finding where to request adminship, they are most likely not qualified to be one anyway. --Creol(talk) 21:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This is actually a really good idea imo. Therefore I've been bold and done it. But actually should Wikipedia:Simple talk/header be protected a bit better? 'Golden-locked' for admins only? Kennedy (talk • changes). 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I assumed it was.. that's why I wasn't as bold as you. --Creol(talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Never really thought about the protection until it worked and I realised the implications of my change... Kennedy (talk • changes). 21:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Stale conversation, I suppose, but I've gone ahead and changed the protection. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

joe henderson

Do you have a biography about this jazz musician?

Sorry, but apparently Joe Henderson not. --weltforce (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Status

{{editprotected}} In the header, the "Wikipedia status" sentence links to a nonexistent page. Why not update this to link to the official page ? Thanks! Theopolisme talk! 21:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! Osiris (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrea A Johnson

It appears to me that this web site doesnt load up on a Motorola Droid. Are other folks getting the exact same issue? I enjoy this blog and dont want to have to skip it whenever Im away from my computer. — This unsigned comment was added by 108.171.207.228 (talk • changes).

We don't have a page called that on Simple Wikipedia. Perhaps you mean to be at English Wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Blocked for 1 week - And I thought MediaWiki's anti-spambot measures were good... Chenzw  Talk  13:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions starting in 2013

Simple English Links to Standard Wikipedia Pages

Wouldn't it make more sense if the Simple English Wikipedia linked to the standard Wikipedia page for a topic whenever there is not a Simple English page for that topic? Currently, the Simple English Wikipedia links to unwritten Simple English pages for topics that exist on the standard Wikipedia. Some information, though hard to understand, is better than none, in my opinion.

No, we do need those pages to be red-linked. Also, main English wiki is easy to find. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with previous. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Random colons"

My fault. Sorry. My tablet's cursor jumps sometimes, and I couldn't find where that colon went. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, it's all good. I'm on a Dell, so my cursor jumps around the screen at unfathomable speeds sometimes. TCN7JM 12:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Presentation Text

Hi, Simple Talk Family how are you?

I'm a new member to this site. I want you meet with you and I want to improve my level of English language. I'd appreciate if you help me. --Simit81 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Samet Have a good day.


Discussions starting in 2015

Congratulations...

... to Pmlineditor and Ruy Pugliesi, who are now WP:Stewards. They join M7, Barras, Mentifisto and Bsadowski1 as Simple regulars who are now Stewards. We are incredibly well-represented! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Congrats from me too, good luck with the tools, you deserve them! :D --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 22:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all. I'll do my best. :) Ruy Pugliesi 03:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Links

"the names of major geographic features and locations, " - What is "major"? Obviously, a (major) country, but what about provinces and states (Bavaria, Texas, for example) and cities (London, Kalamazoo)? The Himalayas, but what about Mt. Olympus and then Pikes Peak? Probably all oceans are easy, but what about seas? If we follow this guideline, do we have a formal dividing line or do we follow what we think is common sense?Kdammers (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Generally use common sense. The idea is not to overlink because we do more linking here due to having to link words which are not simple. So if you link to places its a reader is already likely to know (unless it is central to the topic to link) then we sometimes end up with a lot of over linking. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd add: the more the name as you see it is universally used or understood, the less likely it is that you need to link to it. (It's probably unusual for "Texas" to be anything but "Texas"—or maybe "Tejas"—in any Latin-script language.) If it is an Anglicized version of a place name outside the English-speaking world (the example given was Florence-Firenze), that's probably a good cue to link. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)