Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is a copy of old messages from Simple Talk. They were moved here on July 5, 2007. It contains discussions which ended before July 2007.

United States Bill of Rights

In that article, first there is a quote and a simplified form. It is doubtful if this "simplified form" is an accurate interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Maybe simpler and more accurate interpretations of the Bill of Rights can be found in primary sources. It is possible that children's books and grade school textbooks have simpler and more accurate interpretations of the Bill of Rights than one person's opinion. Coffsneeze 00:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a candidate for wikisource to me; is there a simplified Wikisource? --Eptalon 10:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of! Huji 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only four simple English projects in existence right now are SE Wikipedia, SE Wiktionary, SE Wikiquote, and SE Wikibooks. I think that a simple English Wikisource is one of the next logical SE projects. It will be a lot of work, and should start on the old Wikisource server rather than separately, perhaps (unless they've changed their former policy of using the old server for small projects until they're large enough to merit a wikisource of their own), but I think that it and a simple English WikiNews seem to be the next things we need. Both seem to be straightforward applications of the SE ideal of bringing information to people who want to use English (not another language) but don't know it very well, for whatever reason. No one who accepts simple English Wikipedia's validity should have a problem seeing the validity of an SE Wikisource or WikiNews, I think. Ooh, I just had a bright idea! We should start making simple English pages (versions of existing pages, mostly) on Meta, too! That would be highly useful, in ways that don't even apply here. There are already a few things on Meta that are put in simple English (like the Quarto, I think), but most of Meta is about as complicated as English generally gets. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shields

I made a page on shields but didn't have the imformation to complete it, could I ask of some smart people to enter the page and complete it, and try to place it all in ABC order, order based on time of invention [in history,] or some other order. Please add as many shields as possible. the site is HERE

-Niko {Nikro}

Name

My user name is Nikro, but i misspelled it Niko when creating an account. please change my name for me. for prove, check out my Wikipedia account is Here.

Nikro, it would be a better idea to submit username change requests on the talk page of one of the active bureaucrats. (These are the guys who have the permission to change a username.) I have brought this to User:Vector's attention on his/her talk page. Huji 07:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from now on, plase sign your posts on talk pages and on Simple talk, by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. It would be automatically replaced with your signature. Huji 07:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vector is a guy. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 07:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did sign my name, sorry. Thx :) 70.130.181.203 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've renamed you. Archer7 - talk 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a system message

I think the message shown on the bottom of the anonymous users' talk pages (example), can be made a little nicer in look, and a little more easy to distinguish from the content added to the page. Currently it shows as:

This is the user talk page for a user who is not using an account. Their IP address is used to identify them. IP addresses can be shared by more than one computer so anonymous users may get messages that are not meant for them. If you are an anonymous user and you are getting messages not meant for you, please create an account or log in.

I suggest this to be changed to such (more or less like English Wikipedia):

This is the user talk page for a user who is not using an account. Their IP address is used to identify them. IP addresses can be shared by more than one computer so anonymous users may get messages that are not meant for them. If you are an anonymous user and you are getting messages not meant for you, please create an account or log in.

The change should be applied here by an administrator. Please comment here if there are objections. Otherwise, I believe we should assume "Silence equals consent" as described on Consensus Policy. Thanks, Huji 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change. Indeed your proposed message looks better.--Eptalon 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There are a few other messages and templates which I should have a look into. I will propose them here later on Huji 18:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One line articles about Brazilian soccer teams

If you take a look at Special:Contributions/201.53.191.9, you will see that (by the time of this writing) more than 20 articles have been created about Brazilian (correct me if I'm wrong) soccer teams. These are of unknown notability, and the articles are so short that they might even match with the criteria of speedy deletion of short articles. What do you think? Huji 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the lot. Majorly (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyland Article

I find this article long and confusing. One reason is there is the Disneyland Resort which consists of two parks Disneyland Park and Disney's California Adventure. There is also Disneyland Paris, Toyko Disneyland and Hong Kong Disneyland. I would like to break the main article up into Disneyland Park, Disneyland Resort and Disney's California Adventure. Eventually the other Disneyland's could have their own articles written. However, being fairly new to Simple I wanted to run this by others. If the three articles are separated, should Disneyland be redirected to Disneyland Resort, Disneyland Park or another page that would list all of the parks with a common theme? I prefer Disneyland Resort. Thank you --DizFreak 20:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need to start with breaking them to three seperate articles. Start by giving a definiion of Disney Land and its history. Clarify that there are more than one Disney Lands in the world right now. Then create sections about each of them. If we find a section deserves a separate article, we can create that article later on. Keep up the good work! - Huji ^reply 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. My concern was that the article would be quite long with the large number of theme parks named Disneyland. I will start on the article rewrite today and appreciate any help over at the Disneyland Talk page.--DizFreak 19:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - Huji ^reply 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wiktionary Template

I found quite a few articles that could use the link to Simple Wiktionary, but I don't know how to put that box on the page. What's the code for putting it on a page? Nancysing 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: {{Wiktionarypar| name of article goes here}}. Isis 02:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That template is for English Wiktionary. {{wiktionary}} is for Simple English Wiktionary. J Di 10:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't mean to put that one as the link. I was tired and didn't realize it. Isis 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see that people are starting to use/link to SEWT more and more! We'd be happy to have any editors interested in helping out over there. I'd really like it if someone wanted to beautify (and make more useful) some of our uglier pages like our Community portal. We even have some things over there (like another list for simple English, the British National Corpus spoken frequency list) that are probably valuable here as well. I'll try to become active here again, too. Oh, and don't forget that SE Wikiquote and SE Wikibooks are also out there and working to improve and grow. Let's make these wikis truly great! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining Simple English

Simple English is also known as Sindish {Simple + English } . Books of this subject are found in every country . Advantages of Simple English are:

Everywhere you go in the world you will find someone who speaks it.
Business is done in Simple English.
The verb tenses are simple.
The majority of the world's news coverage is in English .
90% of the web is in English
It is spoken in more places on the planet than any other language.
It is comprised of words from many of the other languages of the world, making it truly international.
It is easily adaptable and very flexible.
It is not discriminatory such as are other languages with male female versions.
World wide language, Internet main language, easy syntax, easy to build up words.
Most widely accepted language in a professional environment: medical, aviation, financial, etc...
Massive amount of internet pages in Sindish {Simple + English }-- one of the largest languages.
Easy to type! Only 26 letters. No special accents.
Letters are very easy to read and write. All characters consist of straight angular lines or simple curves and circles.
It is used throughout the world in the technology and business sectors.
Wherever you travel, you can likely find a person who speaks Simple English Sindish {Simple + English)

--Basant5 09:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post. I reformatted that to be more useful. I can't figure out why you posted the above here, but I noticed you added Sindish to the requested articles list. - Huji ^reply 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sindish does not seem to be a very common term. Indeed, all google hits seem to be about Jedi knights, wizards or something along those lines. Looks like a hoax to me. --rimshot^talk 09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The description provided by Basant5 describes the widespread use of the English language by non-native speakers. However, I don't know that what they use is actually a particular language called Simple English as found in this Wikipedia (and certainly not "Sindish"). The term "English as a Lingua Franca" ("ELF") is becoming current among linguistics and translation professionals. I think we'll be seeing and hearing more and more about ELF in the future, and the Simple English Wikipedia will be increasingly popular. -- Deborahjay 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on individual video games

Are articles on individual video games allowed? If not, why isn't there any info about the video games on the main article? Don't people want to find out info about the video games? Panda Bear 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving an example of such a game? It is not quite clear whether you are talking about one computer game in a series of computer games, a certain board game, Playstation games or anything else. The first computer game I checked, Grand Theft Auto, had information about the series as well as one particular game of the series. I guess this reflects the coverage of Simple English Wikipedia pretty well: there are some articles on individual games and many are still missing. If you don't plan on writing more than a few lines about individual games of a series, it's probably best to just put the information in the main article of the series. If you weren't talking about computer game series, try to make your question a bit clearer. Best regards, --rimshot^talk 09:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification

Could someone simplify this for me, please? "Engrish refers to grammatically incorrect variations of English often found in East Asian countries." Panda Bear 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Engrish is a word. It is used to talk about versions of English with grammar errors in them. Engrish can be found in East Asian countries, mostly" --Eptalon 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two very good articles

Hello community,

I hereby announce that Caffeine and Japanese tea ceremony are the first two very good articles in this wikipedia. They meet all the criteria for such articles (except the agreement of 3 editors). If you find other articles that have a similar standard of writing, you can nominate them here. On that page you will also find other candidates that can be made into very good articles with little effort. Named editors can also vote on proposed very good articles.

We got the process started --Eptalon 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, guys :). I'll see if I can get to work on some articles :-P. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to everyone. This is *great*! Should this be considered the same thing as FA on EWP or is this a step in the process? If it is the same thing, we probably need to put it somewhere besides "peer review" (on its own page) and we should maybe see if we can find a better name, more like "featured," but still simple English. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same as Featured Article. At the moment, we have between 20 and 40 regular editors, so I think that it can live under Peer review (on its own page),as it does currently. I personally do not expect more than 1-2 new very good article propositions a week, at most. We might need to beef up the template somewhat, and perhaps have a proposed very good article template, for all those that meet most criteria, but have not yet been voted on. --Eptalon 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a "proposed very good article" template. It might also encourage voting to mark on the actual page that it is currently under discussion, which has certainly been a struggle in the past--hasn't it Eptalon? ;-) lol. We've been kicking around ideas so long that it's exciting to see it finally start to happen! Maybe we can even do a featured article on the main page, perhaps weekly for a while until we have a larger number of VG articles. · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese tea ceremony is an article related to Japan, and it's a very good article. Go Japan! Panda Bear 22:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go, and find more articles like these, and nominate them. I have no problem at all with articles about Japan. :) --Eptalon 22:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. But for the next ones, I prefer to see articles with more than one source. - Huji ^reply 13:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More simplification

How about this? "The term originates from the fact that Japanese (as well as several other East Asian languages) does not have separate sounds for R and L. In Japanese the R sound is pronounced as an alveolar lateral flap (ɺ), articulated with the tongue flapped against the hard palate behind the front teeth, so that it sounds like a Spanish soft R. Because Japanese does not have a separate equivalent for the English L, native Japanese speakers not fluent in English often mispronounce English words containing the letter L. While the term mocks the accent, it is used mainly without malice in reference to humorous misuses, puns, and double entendres within written English, not difficulties in pronunciation. For example, election might be pronounced erection."

And this?

"Blender was developed as an in-house application by the Dutch animation studio NeoGeo (not to be confused with the Neo-Geo game console) and Not a Number Technologies (NaN). It was primarily authored by Ton Roosendaal, who had previously written a ray tracer called Traces for Amiga in 1989. The name "Blender" was inspired by a song by Yello, from the album Baby.

Roosendaal founded NaN in June 1998 to further develop and distribute the program. The program was initially distributed as shareware until NaN went bankrupt in 2002.

The creditors agreed to release Blender under the terms of the GNU General Public License, for a one-time payment of €100,000 (approximately US$102,000 as of September 2002). On July 18, 2002, a Blender funding campaign was started by Roosendaal in order to collect donations and on September 7, 2002 it was announced that enough funds had been collected and that the Blender source code would be released. Blender is now an open source program being actively developed under the supervision of the Blender Foundation.

The Blender Foundation initially reserved the right to use dual licensing, so that, in addition to GNU GPL, Blender would have been available also under the "Blender License", which did not require disclosing source code but required payments to the Blender Foundation. However, this option was never exercised and was suspended indefinitely in 2005. Currently, Blender is solely available under GNU GPL." Panda Bear 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed very good articles

Hello, I have spent much of my time on getting more very good articles. For this, I have made a new template, pvgood. It can be used for articles which meet at least half the criteria needed, and which are listed on respective peer review page. The idea is that once all criteria are met, the article can be voted on, to be included in the very good articles category. At that time, the templare can be replaced by vgood. So, if you find such an article which might qualify, please use the template, and list it here. Thanks. --Eptalon 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you've put on it. Could you give it a more official look? Like, creating a project page, defining the submission and voting standards in a better way, rewording the criteria and removing non-official statements like "I propose...", and setting a backlog or archive system up? I would be glad to help with these as well. - Huji ^reply 13:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles, which I termed as a guideline; it is also available as WP:VGOOD. So far there is no archive; though we will soon need one. At the moment, the articles that I think stand a chance of becoming very good articles are marked with pvgood; anyone is free to list new ones, as detailed in the requirements (basically: Meet 5 of the 10 requirements listed, and be listed at the proposed very good article page). --Eptalon 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was another thing I thought would be great long ago when I first became active here, so I'm glad that this aspect is getting off the ground! I think we also need to put in place a system for removal from vgood article status similar to the "former featured" system on English Wikipedia. This way, when an article is changed in a way that makes it no longer a vgood article (such as an edit war over a minor point that ends up clogging the article in a non-ideal state), someone can remove its status, while stating the reason that it is no longer a vgood article. What do y'all think? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is always good that some editors look ahead, to solve a problem, before it arises. At the moment, we have two (2) very good articles. There are six (6) more in the queue (proposed very good articles). So if we are lucky, we can come up with 8 very good articles, in the near future. Given a 5% change ratio, this means that 0.4 articles would need change. In all honesty, I look forward to the day when we need to come up with a policy to deal with the 5 articles to change, out of the 100 very good articles we have. Let us (20 editors) worry about it at that time. --Eptalon 19:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain of the exact tone of your comments here, Eptalon. I am particularly thinking of where you say "Let us (20 editors) worry about it at that time." I can see two possible meanings here, and I'd like to think that you mean the nicer one: 1) "We only have a few regular editors and we don't need to worry too much about this issue yet," or 2) "We are regular editors here. You are not. Leave it to the regular editors. You are not welcome here." I'm hoping you meant #1, and your first sentence makes me almost sure of it. Either way, your point that we don't need to worry about this quite yet is a good one. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Mythology

I copy-pasted the page "Egyptian Mythology" from en wikipedia (but hid the un-simplified content). It will take a long time for just one person to simplify it. If other people could help, the page could be finished a lot faster. Isis§^(talk) 11:09, 22 December 2024

I'm willing to help :) and en is a good base, but not something to copy :) --'Choos'nink ^TALK 19:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with that article is not to make the article simple (it is about 4-5 screens in length). The work lies in creating all the pages linked, with a sufficient level of detail.In my opinion, you should list this at the top of Wikipedia:Peer review, in the hope that some editors get some time (Bear in mind though, that at the moment there are about 20 active editors. We are glad for any regular editor that joins us). Look at Category:Norse mythology too, it is probably comparable. --Eptalon 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the article on Peer review. I expect to "cut out" a lot of the article, like with World History. I wouldn't have copied it from en, but it is such a broad subject that I didn't want to forget any information. Isis§^(talk) 11:09, 22 December 2024

Another option would be to make all info visible. Then you (as probably more expert) could cut out the parts you think are not good for this wikipedia, while you stick an unsimple/complex tag on top. Subsequent editors could then simplify the article. I also feel that such discussion should be at the article's talk page, rather than here. --Eptalon 21:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales

Could someone please go to Jimbo Wales talk page and tell him about Simple English Wikipedia, please? Thanks. Panda Bear 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a feeling he knows about it already, since he was the founder of it. Billz (Talk) 23:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user:Billz. He was the founder of Wikipedia, so I think he knows about it. Isis§^(talk) 11:09, 22 December 2024

Let's not be silly: Jimbo, while a nice guy and highly interested in the success of any and all Wikipedia projects, is a desperately busy man. That's part of the reason some of his responsibilities have been passed to the Wikimedia board fairly recently. I'm fairly certain that he has little or no knowledge of the existence of the simple English projects, but I'm also not sure how useful it would be for him to know more. He tends to only be directly involved in English Wikipedia, and he doesn't really (that I've seen) tend to promote any project over any other. Also, Angela was one of the founders of this particular wiki (meaning she has firsthand knowledge of the existence of simple English projects), and she is (or was, last time I checked) on the Wikimedia board. I think voicing any concerns/opinions regarding this wiki to her would be much more useful than talking to Jimbo about it. On the other hand, if the idea is just to let the person who founded Wikipedia know that we exist, that seems a valid reason by itself. So go for it! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angela is even an inactive admin here! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He knows about this. I actually asked him for his view on the new logo vote for this wiki and he gave his opinion. However, he doesn't have an account here. User:Jimbo Wales here is an empty account.-- Tdxi a n g 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info, Tdxiang! Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

How much are people using lists here at the moment? I know in the past that lists were more or less frowned upon here (though I always thought that they had their value), but I'm trying to fix orphaned pages and can't figure out what other article might link to AIESEC except a list of business clubs (which can certainly be copied from EWP). This is, of course, an example of a larger problem, since I run into the same thing with several other of the first items on that list. Any thoughts? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How much are people using ... here at the moment" as a very hard to answer question. I really am eager to know how many people really use Simple English wikipedia, except for some schools, etc. - Huji ^reply 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about readers; We have between 15 and 25 different (named) ediors. That is if you define editor as "one content related edit a week". This means the edit is actually about editing an article; not vandalising, or reverting vandalism-related changes; For us admins, admin-related work like banning users also does not count, of course. That number is a guess of mine, based on the new changes logs I see. Sad, but true. And no, we do not need more editors ;) --Eptalon 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many people have heard of Simple English period, much less simple english wikipedia. --Isis§^(talk) 12:42, 18 June 2007

This is all very interesting, but we're missing my original question: Are lists used here now? Or perhaps better: Would it bother anyone if I started creating/importing lists here? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of lists. At least one of them looks very much like an article, namely List of shields. In principle, lists are useful as (1) reference and (2) navigational aid. It is my personal opinion that categories should be used instead of lists when the only purpose of the list would be to put links to similar articles on a common page. As for importing lists: go ahead if you think it will help someone find their way more easily, or if it will give more information than could be found without the list. Be bold. --rimshot^talk 09:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question, Rimshot. I agree with you that categories are better than lists for a lot of things, though I do think that lists have their purposes (as I think you agree). The reason I would prefer to use a list with regard to the issue above is because any categories I put things in will likely stay almost empty for a very long time (depending on the cat), while a list that has only one blue link isn't much of a problem, and is even an invitation for help! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew Arcticle Help

I have started an article about the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories. I need help writing the page in Simple format. To help, click here - Nancy Drew and change the page.

I need help editing the mentioned Nancy Drew article- I want to redirect it to a page with both Nancy and Drew having their first letter capitalized, but I don't know how. Nancysing 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this fixed already? I don't really understand the request. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew Talk Page

I have started a Talk Page for the new page Nancy Drew. You can post your thoughts, ideas, etc. in this space. Thank you. Talk:Nancy Drew --Liam.gloucester 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling box thing

Can anyone who knows CSS tell me how to make a scrolling box thing? Do you even know what I'm talking about? Panda Bear 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to do it would be to set the overflow attribute in a text area that has defined size (Height and width). When the text in the area is larger than the area itself, scroll bars will be applied. Setting overflow to "auto" will include scroll bar only if the text is forced outside of the area of the box. Setting it to "scroll" will alway include the boxes even if it does not the actual slider in the bar because it is not needed. -- Creol(talk) 02:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTML:

<div style="
  height: 100px;
  width: 600px;
  overflow: auto;
  border: 1px solid #aaa;
  background-color: #eef;
  padding: 8px;}
">
some text you want in the box. full 
html/wiki tagging is allowed to be
included in the text.
</div>

Wikimedia Election Notice

If you are able, please translate this notice to as many possible languages and post it anywhere applicable.

The Wikimedia Election Committee is accepting candidates for the 2007 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. Please see [1] for more information.

There is still time for a new candidate to be considered for election, and you may now endorse the candidate of your choice (up to 3 candidates) on the endorsements page, [2]. Please read the instructions carefully prior to endorsing. If you can translate the instructions, please do.

If you have any questions, please contact any member of the election committee, who are listed here [3].

Posted on behalf of the Election Committee,
Philippe

Removing old sysops

I discovered two sysops, SimonMayer an inactive bureaucrat who made his last edit 1 1/2 years ago on December '05 and Brion VIBBER, a developer in meta and also has been absent for more than 1 1/2 years; his last edit was on October '05. Well as meta and en wiki's policies go, it states that a sysop who hasn't used his tools for more than a year should be desysoped. So I was wondering if we should pick up this topic. And also they are currently the only two sysops who hasn't made any edits for more than exactly one year. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} ^Adminship 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask about that. I think we should demote SimonMayer, and ask Brion. Archer7 - talk 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was wondering the same thing a couple weeks ago. --Isis §^(talk) 13:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we round up all the active admins and the other two 'crats to discuss about it (oh yeah I forgot I'm not an admin yet... shoot). --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} ^Adminship 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I was wondering but why should we ask Brion rather than demote him ourselves like with SimonMayer? --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} ^Adminship 20:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it formal enough, I think we should hold a request for deadminship. To keep it simple though, I think we can have it on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. - Huji ^reply 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be organized like m:Meta:Administrators/confirm at Meta-Wiki. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what does meta have to do with this? I think we should rather demote the two at Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... he suggested we set it out like the Meta page. And the only people who can demote are stewards, who are located at Meta. So, Meta has quite a lot to do with this. Majorly (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap! You're right! I forgot that 'crats can't demote people. But one question, if we should bring this up on meta, how did we demote the other inactive sysops like last time on WP:RFA? --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 16:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We simply had a poll here - the request was then added to the Meta permissions page. Nishkid is suggesting we set out a requests for de-adminship like Meta's confirmation page. Majorly (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 16:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.--Werdan7^{T @} 19:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what to do in the end? Are we going to have a Wikipedia:Request for deadminship or not? - Huji ^reply 18:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New BJÖRK Article

I am adding an article - Björk. You may add if you wish. In fact, I would very much appreciate it if you could.

THANKS. — This unsigned comment was added by Liam.gloucester (talk • contribs) . .

I'm having a hard time resisting the temptation to bite the newcomer (I even already talked to him about his main page edits, but nicely), but I'll just say this: thank you for your enthusiasm. It isn't necessary to mention every new page you create or edit. That is one of the reasons that New changes exists, so that people can see what changes have been made, when, and by whom. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popup problem

Oddly enough, I have been having issues with popups not working on this page only. After some hunting the culprit was found. The word Article used as a heading ( ==Article==) actually blocked Lupin's popups.. I renamed the heading here to List of Shields to correct it in case others were also having issues. (I am running an old copy of Lupins so it may just be me) -- Creol(talk) 10:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Page

As of today, someone has erased all of my "big" font tags and erased my bold font head tags in my userpage. I have fixed it, but would like to remind the wikipedia community that User pages are personal, and should be layed out anyway the user would like them, and should be unique.— This unsigned comment was added by Liam.gloucester (talk • contribs) . .

I agree that they should be unique and a personal space, but they must really be legible, otherwise they are pointless. Nobody can possibly read yours so it is simply wasting valuable space on Simple English Wikipedia. Billz (Talk) 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really might want to format the page in such a way that it can be read, though. If you only looked at it in Internet Explorer, try Mozilla or Opera to see what I mean. Best regards, --rimshot^talk 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I was replying to Liam.gloucester, but someone changed the indentation. rimshot^talk 09:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I use FireFox, so Liam.gloucester's user page is an absolute mess, but a little bit better in Internet Explorer. Either way, it's still completely illegible and a waste of Wikipedia's resources to actually host it. Billz (Talk) 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly bothered about this one if you specifically want it to be illegible, but it does seem a little pointless. When it comes to "wasting resources", with pages like that it's going to be less than a kilobyte of data on our hundreds of gigabytes and masses of bandwidth, so if it makes you happier here at Wikipedia then that's basically the whole point of userpages anyway - to make Wikipedia more personal. However, I do agree that it does seem a little pointless for other people to look at. Archer7 - talk 00:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do want your user page like that anyway? --Isis §^(talk) 02:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think they should be legible if they are there. It's totally pointless and absurd to have a userpage which nobody can read! Billz (Talk) 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference for those people not running multiple browsers, here is are screenshots of the page at 1024x768 resolution in Firefox 1.0.7, Internet Explorer 7, and Safari 3. The Safari image is the easiest to read but I would hardly say legible and Firefox is just a big black blog. -- Creol(talk) 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera 9.1 looks very similar to the Internet Explorer screenshot. That means that it's illegible on virtually every browser! Can anybody see much point to that? Billz (Talk) 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with it, other than it's really annoying. --Isis §^(talk) 17:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said to Liam that your user page is meant to say everything about you, and when his is awkward and difficult to understand, what does it say about him? It's just so annoying! Billz (Talk) 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I felt a little frightened when I started reading this section, since, as you may or may not know, a well known "extremly large font size" trick can be used to hack (or something like that) in MediaWiki. However, I think liam wasn't doing that, so as long as he/she likes the user page that way, I'm reluctant about changing it - Huji ^reply 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! Don't bite the newcomer! If he wants to have a userpage no one can read, let him! I know it isn't how we would do it, but we definitely shouldn't all gang up on him and criticize him for something that is perfectly legitimate. I personally hold a strong dislike for Barney, but if someone want's to have a Barney-themed userpage, while I have the right to comment, I shouldn't be overly critical just because of my preference. Yes, he did kind of ask for it by his reminder, but we went a little overboard in our reaction, don't you think? I know I would hate it if I had done something I liked and someone (especially several people) started telling me how it was all wrong for this browser and that browser, etc. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I really don't need to be patronized about the gigabytes and kilobytes and masses of archives of bandwidths. It isn't important. LIAM ! 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tokyo

Would an article on TV Tokyo be okay here? Panda Bear 19:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, but it's not as important as some of the wanted pages. Billz (Talk) 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a user here that regularly deleted pages he/she thought were "not important enough." I always considered that highly counterproductive. I'm glad that we don't do that anymore, though I think we still have preference for core articles, and wanted pages are of course another valuable measure of article desirability. Either way, since you are entitled to use your time in any good-faith way you see fit (since all of us are volunteers), an article on TV Tokyo sounds good to me. Just make sure it's simple enough. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

I would like to join Wikipedia:Userboxes, but a note says "Consensus currently opposes any creation or use of non-Babel userboxes in the main or template: namespaces. Whether they will be ultimately allowed in the user: namespace is still uncertain." So do you think I should join them or not? Panda Bear 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, you decide. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and join if you want. Just don't create userboxes for now. Asking about it here is a great way to restart discussion, though, and that can help us reach consensus regarding userspace userboxes. I think most of them are okay, personally, and that's what EWP finally decided, too, if I understand things correctly. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon, France

The article Lyon, France is horribly written. It really needs to be edited, but I can't add and simplify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.gloucester (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if someone started the page and then got tired of it, halfway through. I'll clean it up a bit. --rimshot^talk 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big words

I feel that the article Big words is a waste of space. It is obviously an inside joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.gloucester (talk • contribs)

I've removed the {{complex}} tag because it wasn't a user page. It is an inside joke and a very good one at that, hence why it is no longer an article and is now part of his talk page. Billz (Talk) 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja-1

If you knew two Japanese words, would you put up the Ja-1 Babel userbox? I sure wouldn't. Alastor Moody, I know you would. Panda Bear 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I know almost every word in the Spanish language, yet I dunno how to put them in a proper sentence. I qualify for some points, --Choos nink ^TALK 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xx1 - enough to understand written material or simple questions in this language. So, no, I wouldn't. Is there actually anyone who doesn't speak two words of Japanese? --rimshot^talk 08:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Panda Bear feels the need to criticize Alastor Moody, but I would guess that most English speakers know at least a few words in Japanese, like "sayonara", "ninja", and "karate". We may not pronounce them correctly, but that's a completely different issue. Wow, Choosnink, you're in a strange situation. How do you manage that? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 06:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article of the day?

I think there should be a featured article, or article of the day, on the Main Page like English Wikipedia, as there are articles people probably won't be searching often, such as Pavia, Italy or London, Ontario. Liam.gloucester 19:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a new system for "very good articles", which is essentially identical to the featured articles seen at other Wikimedia projects. However, I don't think we have that many high-quality articles that we could feature on the Main Page. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe once there are ten or so very good articles, we could start one. Perhaps not "article of the day", but something like "article of the week" will do to extend the time period for one article. RaNdOm26 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a system is actually in the planning phase. My main work at the moment focuses on getting very good articles, to feed to the system. --Eptalon 21:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Liam.gloucester went against consensus and added an "Article of the Week" section to the end of the main page, which I think should be removed at least for now. Please also note that the featured article system on EWP has nothing to do with bringing to light lesser-known articles (that's what DYK is for, more or less) and everything to do with showing the best that EWP has to offer. If those articles mentioned by User:Liam.gloucester are of a very high quality, they should be nominated for vgood status. If not, not. For more discussion on the same, see Talk:Main Page (at the bottom) and User talk:Liam.gloucester. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cromw, please see Talk:Main Page. - Huji ^reply 07:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree with the "Article of the day" section, basically because we do not have enough articles to find a good one each day. We could possibly do "Article of the week", but we need a system to determine when the good articles will be featured. Finally, the section needs to blend in well with the other sections, unlike the one that was made earlier. Billz (Talk) 10:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying Pavia

Could someone help simplify the article Pavia? I think, if it is simplified, it can be nominated as a very good article. — This unsigned comment was added by 68.43.91.73 (talk • contribs) .

I will help simplifying it if I find some time but I don't think it would become a very good article after simplification, since it doesn't even cite a single source. - Huji ^reply 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]