Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 20

Simple English Wikinews

Hello. I don't know if this is the place to make these kinds of comments (I believe this is like a "village pump"), or if this comment will be seen as bad, so I would like to say that I am sorry, before writing anything; I do not want to break any rules on purpose. :-) I would just like to invite everyone who wants to bring free news to those who are learning English (and those who oppose such a thing) to join in in the discussion about starting a Wikinews in Simple English. Again, feel free to change that page and leave comments! --Boricuæddie 00:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Art history of Bangladesh

Rips 10 is here again.I have got what I wanted and thanks for it.Now I want to request one thing more that is -as a Bangladeshi painter I want only Bangladeshi paintings(art) history relleted wikipedia.we have many promesing artist in Bangladesh older and new but all we got a few that tells us Indian art history more than bangladesi.I don't know whether it the right place to ask knid of things.With respect.Rips10

I guess you know these links already. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. :I am afraid we have no specialist for this question here. Please ask Tarif Ezaz. He might be able to help you. --Cethegus 16:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworking Literature category

I think the literature category as we have it now should be reworked, so that we have the following possibilities:

• Classify by language
• Classify by era (Medieval literature)
• Classify by geography region/Country

What do you think?--Eptalon 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Cethegus 16:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created Category:Literature by era with a few categories in it; I think we still need to sort out:

• Different literary forms: Like a category for epic poetry, or something were we can put in what a classical greek tragedy is supposed to be.
• Different forms of publication (group together comics, magazines, newspapers..)
• By audience: Regious texts, secular texts
• By length: Short stories, novella

etc.

Since I am not a literature major I am perhaps not too good at classifying them. --Eptalon 21:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not try to have so many different aspects yet, but begin with Literature by continent, Literature by language, Literature by nationality, Literature by era, Literature by sort of texts (poetry, prose, plays). --Cethegus 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you like, go ahead, and do what you proposed; I already did some of that.. --Eptalon 23:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to wait for Creol for some time. I already informed him of our talk here. --Cethegus 23:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One of our big problems with literature is that while we have plenty of articles (/stubs) on writers, we have very few articles on their works. This makes it hard to categorize as there are few articles to group together. Ideally, I see origin (country), language, period, genre, and style (length, form, etc) as the major break points when looking at where to seperate the categories but with so little to work with (we have more comics than classics of English lit, infinitely more movies or tv series than books..) it is hard to set up a distint cat tree for them.

Movies and tv series I would not count as literature personally but as own categories, comics could be the only subcategory for style for the moment. - But I am in a hurry in the moment. I would only start with something gerneral it is easy to agree upon and find subcategories later. --Cethegus 11:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fossils

189.162.133.123 created [[category:Fossils]] and added individual articles to it. I have reversed these and added the appropriate categories as subcats of fossils. This covers most of the animals know to us only by the fossil record. Monotremes, I believe are a category with one or two living examples, maybe crocodilia too. Someone more into taxonomy than I can check. "Fossils" may not be the scientific term may make it easier for the laymen to search for related animals. -- Barliner  talk  21:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Using HTML

can i use html in this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberator1 (talk • contribs)

Most HTML tags do not work here. For a look on how to create articles, look at this page. --Eptalon 09:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

i lost my password User:Liberator1

mediation

I have been looking at this place every so often (look above to see who I was before) and just noticed that Razorflame (talk · contribs) and A_Ramanujan (talk · contribs), hereon referred to as "adit" (the name he goes by here) have been edit warring and reverting each other's changes. I think there should be a centralised mediation place where these fighting parties can explain to each other and work out something and decide on a consensus. Now I don't want the arbcom going on here, because that is just a drama-generating communist Stalinist thing that simulates the U. S. court system only instead of a Soviet we have a little committee where the power is shared, only not among all, but among few. But an informal mediation where they can both peacefully talk things out would be great.

I have created the account User:Liberator due to my password loss. And I learned how to sign my name! Liberator 01:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The situation is already being worked on at Category talk:Integers as well as on the users' talk pages. I'm confident that we can find a solution that will make both parties content. I have also suggested to Razorflame that he bring the discussion to the Requests for deletion page if he truly thinks the category in question should be deleted. Until a consensus has been reached, I have protected the category to prevent further edit warring. · Tygrrr... 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, because I was going to create a place where they can both talk it out at User:Liberator/adit v. Razorflame mediation. Is that OK? adit is now accusing Razorflame of harassing mer. User talk:Razorflame --Liberator 06:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This situation has resolved itself peacefully and without much difficulty. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Year Pages

As I've been trying to create many year pages for this site, I've encountered some difficulty with Creol. Creol has been saying that the year pages that I've been creating have been not simplified enough, or have unverified information in them. I have been saying that the year pages are pages that every Wikipedia should have. What does everyone else here think? Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Even pages in the list of pages every wiki should have must abide by policy. Therefore they must, amongst other things, have content and must be in simple english or risk being deleted as encopypaste.-- Barliner  talk  22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok...I have trouble simplifying pages. How do you suggest I get help with my simplification into Simple English easier? Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

According to your user page babel you have no problems with simple english. If you do, reread the help pages , including WP:HOW-- Barliner  talk  22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why I put Simple as a native language is because I have a native speaking of English. I should change that to a different number, because I don't understand Simple English as much as I thought I did. Thanks for pointing this out to me! Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just been working hard to simplify all the year pages with a copy-paste tag on it and I think I've managed. Feel free to patrol my changes but I think that they're simple enough to be kept here.
Gwib^-(talk)- 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on that Gwib. You definitely made the year pages in question much simpler and I think that they are definitely worth keeping. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Desysop status for Freshstart and Angela

Hey all, I was looking through the Administrators and 'crats page and I noticed that these usesr haven't been active in over a year. Now, I am new to this site, and don't know exactly how long you are supposed to wait for inactive sysops to not come back before nominating him or her for desysoping, but I believe that these users fit the docket quite nicely. Freshstart and Angela's last changes were both back on the 16th of August and the 11th of November, 2006, respectively, meaning that they haven't been inactive for over a year. I believe that this justifies a desysopping of these users based upon how inactive these users have been.

I am posting this here because I don't know where things like this are supposed to go, so please don't berate me for posting it here just on the basis that it was inappropriate. I really don't know where posts like this are supposed to go.

Does anyone else here agree with me for desysopping these users?

Cheers, Razorflame (contributions) Talk 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm...I don't know about Freshstart, but Angela is Angela Beesley. I would say to keep her tools, depending on what others have to say about it (removing them would be a waste of time, imo). It doesn't look very likely that either will be coming around any time soon. But maybe I don't know, considering I wasn't around when either of them were. --Isis§^(talk) 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you on the fact of Angela. I didn't know that she was the co-founder of a section of the Wikia. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think even if we remove Angela's admin tools, she can have them back if she needs. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't remove them. - Huji ^reply 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is to remove both of their sysop rights at first, to be safe from vandals attempting to hack their passwords in the future. But Angela can anyhow get her rights back anytime whenever she needs it. For Freshstart, we can give his rights back if he returns and requests for them. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We currently have more than just these two admins who are no longer using their powers here. Others range from several months with almost no activity (Billz) going back through last February without action. We even have "Active" admins who's only activity is to revert any change to move their name to inactive even though they have not done any admin action since the beginning April 2007 (J Di). Thing is, Inactivity doesn't matter. Current votes for admin show most people here could care less about activity. I find it odd that people are pushing to remove status from people who are inactive and then turn around and vote in support of someone who openly states he will be fairly inactive for extended periods (and has been inactive for the last two months). It almost seems like admin is a prize, the new barnstar to be handed out for doing good work to those that are here. For those that are not putting in the face time, them we can just strip away the award since they wouldn't notice anyway. I personally just do not see the flag as a present for a job well done (or a status symbol as it appears to be for several people). "Get it if you need it, Lose it if you don't" - simple enough and says that these people (and others) fall under the lose it category but if the practice only flows one way, what good is it? If we are going to support inactivity, why should we turn around and punish it as well? -- Creol(talk) 07:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant. I wasn't trying to say that it was a status symbol, I was merely trying to say that we should remove their sysop flag because of security issues, not just because they were inactive. Think of the damage a hacked account could do if it had sysop rights. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Creol, Razorflame asked the community's decision as on wether to demote Angela and Freshstart because they haven't made a single edit for more than a year. I know people like Billz, Phaedriel, J Di, etc, have been gone for several months by now, but they are still far from being inactive for more than a year. Several wikis automatically choose to demote sysops who haven't made a single edit for more than a year, I guess even meta hinted that on their guidelines for an admin. Also, in a situation such as Gwib, the community supports his RfA because they trust him to be an admin. While I'm not against your reason on your opposition to Gwib's RfA, I mean RfAs merely test a user's trust from the wiki community.

As of Angela and Freshstart, we would be given little choice here since they have been gone a a heck of a time. I don't mind if someone chooses to hunt them down and drag them back to this wiki, but we can't just quarrel about wether to desysop them or not. My reason on why to desysop them is because of security from vandals, to which Razorflame has a similar reason to mines. If you notice at en wiki, vandals have attempted (some successfully) to hack an inactive or unnoticing admin's password and compromise their accounts by causing large damages to the wiki. In that type of situation, the compromised account cannot be stopped until a steward is notified to quickly desysop the "admin". Since we are a smaller wiki, help would be seen at a smaller chance since we are a smaller and less notable wiki compared to en and de wikis. Although some of our admins have run for stewardship, Vector and Majorly, it does not matter if they are offline or inactive at this wiki. Thats why its best for this wiki to think beforehand or take precaution. Just my quote-on-quote two cents. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is some sense in what Snake311 is saying. If we were to leave both Freshstart's and Angela's accounts syopped, and some vandal were to come along and successfully hack the passwords from either of their accounts, it would take a good deal of a longer time to get those rampaging vandals stopped from damaging Simple English Wikipedia. The amount of damage that could be caused to Simple English Wikipedia would be a great deal bigger than any amount on English Wikipedia.

If we were to desysop these two users, we could very easily avoid this kind of situation without causing too much grief for anyone else. If they were to come back, we could very easily restore their powers if they ask for them, but for the meantime, I have to say that these two users need to be desysopped for security reasons. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 00:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference if they crack Freshstart's account or Yegoyan's. The system does not alert a user that someone entered the wrong password so even an active admin would not know until they took control of the account that it had happened. By that time, they have already changed the password and started problems. And god forbid it is Angela's account that gets crack as her admin status here is actually just a convenience anyway. Her being a steward and them getting her access there by cracking her password here is a lot more of a threat. Even with a rogue admin account, one admin can hold another in check. One block equals the need for two unblocks and discloses the users IP. This holds off the vandal from doing anything more than constantly unblocking itself until a steward can be found (not long using IRC). Personally, I am not actually against de-sysoping ("lose if you don't"), it is just the inconsistency of the reasoning for it that I am troubled with. -- Creol(talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically what your saying Creol is that it doesn't matter which admin's password gets hacked; and that it could occur by a random chance. While I see your point, wouldn't it be wiser to be safe rather than sorry later. Razorflame is right on the possibilites of this wiki suffering large damages by a compromised admin account, worse if it is a bureaucrat or checkuser since you said that an unnoticing active admin has their password hacked, but nevertheless it would (not could) be a dark day for the simplewiki. But if you say its useless Angela and Frehstart being desysopped because that they were inactive yet that any admin's password (wether active or not) could be hacked by a random chance, then how should we protect this wiki? Bring Drini or M7 to monitor this wiki 24/7? --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 10:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a regular problem: Some people (on all wikis I know) believe that admin status shouldn't be removed from accounts which are left alone for a while, some others say it should be (or at least can be) taken back. Hacking is not a big deal, because admins cannot do anything which is irreversible. The only rare possibility is that an admin account is hacked and does minor vandalisms which are not detected soon enough, but even this way, as soon as it is found out, all of the actions made by that admin account is easily reversible by another account, and, a request for prompt desysoping by stewards can be filled out (which has been practiced on En WP as far as I know).

However, these are all technical parts. Technically, there is no excessive harm in having left alone admin accounts. However, people have a voice above technical issues. Some people believe that, by desysoping admin accounts which are not used, we will let every admin know that adminship is not something you can get and forget, but a responsibility which you should be bound to. It teaches the admins that if they are going to have a situation which will prevent them from collaborating on a wiki any more, they can say it to the community, let them know that they are not going to do those responsibilities any more, and ask a steward to remove their sysop perms. (This one, has even been practiced on our wiki).

I think every body has a voice about it, equally. We should all know there is no problem having inactive sysop accounts from a technical point of view, and we should also know the previous doesn't mean we shouldn't even consider about desysoping inactive admin accounts.

That said, I repeat I'm okay with removing sysop perms from an admin account which hasn't been used for a long time (say one year). - Huji ^reply 12:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, besides all above, after an incident of abuse of admin perms on English Wikipedia (few months ago) which resulted in rapid desysoping of that account, I read somewhere that it had been requested form all admin (and above) users to set a password which is not easy to hack. So again, you see adminship is a responsility: You're even responsible for reducing the chance of your account being hacked. So if an admin sets such a simple password which can be found out by a vandal account (having that CAPTCHA doesn't allow systematic benchmarking), I think we should consider about how that admin is understanding his/her responsibilities. - Huji ^reply 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at Huji. Just to let people know, my account's password is very hard to crack. Just letting you guys know that in advance. As far as I know, we should make a rule or something that would make it so that if you become an admin, you have to be active on the Wikipedia in question. If you cannot, then don't run for adminship. The only exception to this rule would be if someone were to have an instantaneous problem in real life that would prevent them from editing for a while. While this wouldn't be a big problem, I still think that we should revamp the Criteria for Adminship while we are on this topic.

The following rules, I think, should be added to Criteria for adminship:

1. In order to run for adminship, the user has to have been active in the Wikipedia in question for 3 months. By active, I mean at least 1,000-2,000 edits in the past 3 months.
2. You have to stay active after you gain sysop powers. If you just stop coming to the Wikipedia in question right after getting the sysop flag, then you are immediately up for desysopping, if you stay inactive.
3. Password has to be a minimum of 10 characters long and has to be a mixture of numbers and letters.

Anyone here agree with these 2 new rules? Razorflame (contributions) Talk 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How would anyone know what your password is to prove that? What would stop someone from lying about it? But it's such a small deal, I don't think anyone should object. --Isis♠(talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the last one, because in the past, I have created passwords for accounts and have forgotten several of them (including one here, Snake311Bot). So 10 character passwords with numbers and latters for example, H4J38CJK1E, would be very hard to memorize. Anyhow it dosen't matter because as long as you keep the password as secret as possible or no one can figure it out, your fine. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Scratching off the last one because of opposition to it. I would have to agree with that. How would people know what your password is? That's the reason why I've scratched it off the list, but the other 2 points, I think, are incredibly valid. Let us discuss the first two points in depth. Razorflame 02:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first proposal since the minimum recommended requirements for adminship is 3 months and more than 1k number of edits. I also agree with your second proposal since admins should not become inactive right after their adminship. Because in other words, what is the point of appointing new admins or practicing RfA procedures, hypothetically speaking. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 04:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other proposals that you think need to be made to help better describe what adminship is or anything along those lines? Razorflame 04:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, adminship is no big deal, so uh, nothing else:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder about VGAs

This is a reminder that the VGA process is still frozen and will remain that way until we reach a consensus on what the new criteria for very good articles should be. See the proposal at: Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles/New and discuss at: Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New. We have heard the opinion of a number of users, but we need more to reach consensus. Remember, your opinion is important even if you don't have suggestions for improvement. If you think what we've got so far is good, come say so! :-) Once we have decided on the new VGA criteria, we can move on to deciding the criteria for good articles. My hope is that we can reach some sort of conclusion on this shortly. Final shameless plug: Please come voice your opinon about the VGA criteria here!! · Tygrrr... 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just gone through all the points on Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New and summarized what has been discussed, what has been agreed on, and what still needs agreement. This should make it less intimidating for users who are just joining the discussion. I figure January 14th is as good a deadline as any other. That will be one month from the original creation date of Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles/New. At that time, we can begin discussion on Requirements for good articles and unfreeze the entire process after those requirements are set. If you want to have a say in this matter, come voice it before January 14th. · Tygrrr... 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is less than one week left until January 14th and there are still a few points that have not reached consensus yet. Remember: the VGAs reflect on all of us because they are shown on our front page. Let's get the requirements set so we can keep displaying our best articles! Everyone's opinion matters! · Tygrrr... 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Maybe it is just my browser. Is the autolinking function for dates working here?

• Autoformatting_and_linking
• Date_formatting_feature--Bärliner 03:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Need for spoiler tag

Some of the book summaries give away the stories in the very first paragraph. What are we supposed to do? 116.14.116.55 07:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just before the spoiler text put this code in: {{subst:spoiler}} . You'll get a message that says:

Spoiler warning: The text below is about parts of the story or how it ends.

when you save. Then just after the spoiler text put {{subst:endspoiler}} and you'll get a message that says:

End of Spoilers: The text above is about parts of the story or how it ends.

when you save.

Gwib ^-(talk)- 09:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a general comment: In this case there is no need to substitute, so you can simply put {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} instead. --Eptalon (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year Wikipedia!

Happy New Year to every Wikipedian worldwide! Hope that the new year may bring good luck to you and that my chemical romance rulz 4EVER, --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah baby! I made the first article of 2008! See Focke-Wulf Fw 190. JetLover ^Bam! 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So in whatever language you speak, Happy New Year! ¡Feliz Año Nuevo! 新年好! Gelukkig Nieuwjaar! Nouvelle année heureuse ! Glückliches neues Jahr! Nuovo anno felice! 明けましておめでとう! 새해 복 많이 받으세요! Ano novo feliz! С новым годом! --Thamusemeantfan 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too, and mcr RULZ!!! Oysterguitarist 04:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha! "Nouvelle année heureuse!" doesn't make any sense in french. It's meant to be "joyeuse nouvelle année" if you want the proper french wish.

I love literal translations :D

Gwib ^-(talk)- 14:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am French and I don't agree. The traditionnal sentence is "Bonne année !" or "Meilleurs vœux pour la nouvelle année". The translation you quote is a bit odd or original and the second is funny enough but both of them can be understood easily. --- Thank you all for this wikipedia : I have just discovered it and I think I will use it often to improve my English. I like this language but I am not able to understand English-spoken people when they talk so I tend to abandon to read it which is a shame. Nicolas--193.248.215.106 (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Darkicebot

Has this bot of mine been doing good changes? I need the public's consencus here if I am to get it botflag approved. Razorflame 00:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding spoken versions of articles

I would like to add spoken versions of some Simple English articles. Would this be supported, and would the process be the same as for spoken Wikipedia, which adds spoken versions of English Wikipedia articles?

Which articles should have spoken versions added first?

Whesse 01:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have no idea about this. Is it even in our policies? Razorflame 01:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the process would be the same, though I haven't seen any here, and you'd have to commons. I don't have a clue as to support and which first is a matter of opinion, but I'd recomend a high status article such as one that's been on the main page. Cypher 03:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the spoken version of Caffeine - Simple-en-Caffeine.ogg. I have put it up at wikimedia commons.

Sounds good. The only thing is that it will have to stay on the commons, and you will have to upload every other one that you want to onto the commons first. And please don't do this for every article. I agree with Cypher above; this should on be done for the articles that are featured on the front page. Razorflame 04:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a project underway, with many spoken articles, on Simple English Wikipedia. The page is at Category:Spoken_Articles (on Simple), and at Wikipedia:Spoken Articles. The sound files are stored at locations like upload.wikimedia.org, and have pages like (Simple) Image:Sun.ogg. So they do not need to go to commons, I think. The pages say they should be on Wikimedia/simple, since they are not useful to other wikis. Whesse 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image help

Hi, I've been here for three days, and I just wanted to know how I could display an image from en.wikipedia here without re-uploading it to commons. This is hypothetical, I just wanted to know because I didn't know. Thanks!Cypher 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a reply on my talk page:

If there is a picture in an english Wikipedia article, chances are that the picture has already been uploaded onto the Commons, making it fair game for use in any article on here. As for Meta, you'll have to find out for yourself. Meta is much more complex. You'll have to ask on meta. Cheers! Razorflame 03:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's suppose it's not on commons, just on Wikipedia and it's not fair use. I'll ask on meta when I make an account, so I won't expect an answer here, but that'll be next week. Cypher 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you won't be able to get the photo onto here if it isn't in Commons. Razorflame 04:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

\/_\/ Okay, I'll accept that. Cypher 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

About welcome messages

I was recently given a welcome message when I joined this. This was a very kind thought. I was first wondering whether this is a template? If it is, then it the language slightly too complex for our target audience, especially considering this is the first thing they will get, so it will all be confusing to them anyway? if this is just something that someone made by themselves, and is not a standard template or anything, then I did not mean to be rude about it, and am very grateful, but I am thinking about the language used in it for the basic english users. I dont mean the bit in the initial box... as that is already in basic english, but the links after it...

Hi Iamandrewrice, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! Bärliner 12:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Getting Started How to: edit a page • write Simple English articles Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Administrators • Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy The Community Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Peer review • Cleanup Other Useful templates • Stubs

Ben(User)(Talk)(Changes) 16:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the one I use, and IMO the best one I've seen so far (and I've seen around 4 different welcome message templates.

"Hello, Administrators' noticeboard, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you will be happy helping here. You should begin by reading these pages: Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

Even though it is a good idea to research an article (like looking at the discussion page) before making large changes, please be bold and try! Any changes you make that are not perfect can be fixed later. We are also working most on core articles and the most common topics until this Wikipedia grows.

If you want to ask a question or talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Administrators on Wikipedia can also help you with more difficult problems. You can also ask me for help. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. You should always sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

If you would like to test Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Please do not test Wikipedia by editing its articles.

Good luck and happy editing!"

It's used by the code {{subst:welcome}}

Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... i think there should be a default one... that way, when editors sign up, they get it straight away. Otherwise, they have to edit something first before they get it, and in the meantime, they misunderstand something... or may not be able to edit at all because they didnt have a welcome message to explain things to them. I therefore propose selecting, or creating a single welcome message that a user automatically receives upon joining wikipedia. Personally, I thought the one that I received was clearer, as it was more visual. However, the language on it wasnt simple enough. What other available ones are there? What are other people's oppinions on this? Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We have no need of a bot, which would simply create a lot of talk pages which are never used again as many accounts are created but never used to edit. --Bärliner 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree... the reason most accounts are never used to edit is probably because they do not receive a welcome message explaining things. however, if they did get one, then they would be more likely to contribute. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!     Hello, User, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you will be happy helping here. You should begin by reading these pages: Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages. Even though it is a good idea to research an article (like looking at the discussion page) before making large changes, please be bold and try! Any changes you make that are not perfect can be fixed later. We are also working most on core articles and the most common topics until this Wikipedia grows. If you want to ask a question or talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Administrators on Wikipedia can also help you with more difficult problems. You can also ask me for help. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. You should always sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words. If you would like to test Wikipedia, please use the sandbox. Please do not test Wikipedia by editing its articles. Good luck and happy editing!

This is a mighty fine welcome message. Easy to understand and very nice to look at.
Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

yes... i agree, it does look nice :) but the matter in hand is, are we going to avoid confusion by using one standard one? and are we going to greet every user with it... as some users may only understand how to make their first edit after receiving this... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed greeting every user many times before, and people have actually tried it out. It doesn't work. To try and help people before their first edit, we have changed the message they receive after creating an account to have to helpful places to start. Archer7 - talk 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

i would like to say i didnt find the message I got when I joined helpful at all... in fact it confused me even more... if i hadnt edited on main wiki before, i wouldnt have had a clue what to do, especially if it was a foreign language to me... if you are just going to keep that message when they sign in... then merge it in some way with these welcome messages so we dont have bits of info here and there, and its all given to them in one simple block. Also, i think it should be placed on their talk page so they can easily access it after :) Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that I am one of those users that was welcoming everyone when I first joined. :) Razorflame 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should manually be done though... i think it would be automatic... otherwise we wouldnt be able to welcome those who havnt made their first edit yet... and they are the people that most need to be welcomed. Welcoming after this is a bit pointless, as they must already more or less know what they are doing to have edited. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As Barliner pointed out earlier, we don't need to welcome every user that joins this site. Most of them don't even edit. Razorflame 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

But the reason they dont edit could be to do with the fact that they dont understand how. If they were welcomed with a message straight away, it would make it easier for them to start off, right? ^^ Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think every user should be given a welcome message. - Huji ^reply 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome messages should only be given to users who have been stayed at this wiki for more than at least 3-4 days. But I like the welcome template shown way above (the one which has Barliner's sig). --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If a welcome message was given to a user when they first signed up, surely it would encourage them to stay for longer than 3 days though? and with regards to standardizing one simple english welcome message, I do like the layout of Barliner's one, even if the language in it does not seem to prove basic english. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the exact message of the 'welcoming' that user's get when they first sign up (the automatic one, not the one given by other people after the person has edited).

Template:Qif

I've fixed Template:Cite book which was the last one using Qif, now Qif is no longer used. Hold on, maybe I was too hasty in thinking it's done, looking for other places it might be used —Random832 (t/c/e) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

maybe just a cache issue, giving it some time to work through the system. —Random832 (t/c/e) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

done now - shouldn't be needed anymore, would it make sense to mark as deprecated as it is on en.wikipedia?—Random832 (t/c/e) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd wait for one more day to make sure it is not used anywhere. - Huji ^reply 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Caucuses

For a little off topic discussion if anyone is interested, I have made some endorsements for both the Democrats and Republicans on my user page. What qualifies me to make endorsements you ask? Absolutely nothing, other than the fact that my state gets to lead the United States in selecting our next president. I am treating this day as something like a holiday. So, if anyone wants to comment or share their feelings, please do so on my talk page. This is meant to be light hearted and whimsical, not to start any political wars. Happy Caucus Day! -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All the way over here in little Switzerland we don't follow American politics much. I didn't even know that there was an election coming up!

Gwib ^-(talk)- 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that all of the people in the caucus today (their pages) here be semi-protected until the caucus is over. Anyone agree with me? Razorflame 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to read this message? Razorflame 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have and didn't think protection was needed, as it rarely is. The caucuses are over now at any rate. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection of pages should be viewed as a last-resort solution to a problem because it goes against the spirit of a wiki. In this case, there isn't even a problem to solve. Unless/until there is, the pages will remain fully unprotected. · Tygrrr... 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I read over on the English Wikipedia that they will protect pages that are the subject of big news stories in the news because these usually get flooded with edits. That's why I was saying this. Razorflame 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not ENWP. The idea of an open wiki free for all to edit is that pages are not protected unless there is a problem.--Bärliner 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you were. I just wanted to ask a question about it. It got answered, so thanks for the answers. Razorflame 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adoption Program

Here's an idea that I've basically taken the idea from Uncyclopedia:

Experienced editors here (aka: 'crats/admins/users with 3,000+ edits) can adopt a new user to help them get accustomed to the Simple English Wikipedia. They would help guide the new user and would be the basis for all of the new users questions about the Wikipedia. Here's what I propose:

• The creation of the page Wikipedia:Adoption for listing of people who are willing to adopt new users
• The creation of the template for adoptees Template:Adoptee for adoptee's to put on their userpage telling other people who's adopted them.
• The creation of the template for adoptors Template:Adoptor for adoptors to put on their userpage telling other people who they've adopted.
• People to help support this new program.
• The system is not offered in order to excuse people from a ban.

This is similar to "mentoring".

What do you guys think of this?

Please let me know here (add your name to the appropriate section):

Thanks for reading this! I hope you guys like this idea of mine! I need the public's consensus about this before I create the aforementioned pages. Razorflame 17:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Razorflame 17:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• I fully support this, and am actually surprised that it is not already here. It is on ENwikipedia, and in fact I was once 'adopted'. I think that if I was not adopted, I would most certainly be an even worse editor ;p Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 17:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to run it past us if you want to help a new user. We all participate in "running in" new users here and if you want to keep more of an eye on someone than the rest of us then do so. Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it sounds like a smashing Idea IuseRosary (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• I actually think it's worth a try, just to help people settle into the unique way of working here (making sense of simple English writing can be hard), but I actually disagree with the last condition about banned users. I think that the adoption system should be completely seperate from bans/blocks - IMO adoptions should only be for new users (including banned EN ones under some circumstances) that need help in the first few days/weeks to get writing or find things. When it comes to delaying blocks by agreeing to become adopted, I don't really see that happening and I don't think it should either. Archer7 - talk 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• ☆ Lights (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• ENWikipedia will support it, as they have it, so that is about... a few million users? so that many votes (Y) Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) You cannot vote twice and you cannot vote for others. · Tygrrr... 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• I would oppose this as something we don't need yet. We are still a small community and as happened with Razorflame and now Iamandrewrice we all kind of mentor new users. I also think the system could be abused in the long run, a bad user could get a ban or block delayed or commuted by agreeing to be adopted and then stringing us all along. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The community welcomes, adopts, mentors and encourages all new users, as well as "admins and users with 3,000+ edits". A formal one-to-one type is not something needed right now. --Bärliner 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• To be honest, I think adopting is the least of our worries right now. It is easy to tell when there are new members, and if someone were to just put a welcome message on their talk page, I am sure they can figure out how to say they need help. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• We already help and guide users where they're gone wrong. Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Like what already said, I think we don't need to make it a one-to-one relationship. - Huji ^reply 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Stong oppose. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. Here users are expected to learn wiki policies and guidelines bit by bit as they stay and edit. Also through experience say a 3 months time, most new users will already get accoustomed to this wiki as how it goes. Also everyone is welcome to help anyone at anytime. Besides we only get new users who stay permanetly for like one every 2 months so it is not an important issue here since we have a handful of ongoing events/issues already. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not needed at this time. -- Creol(talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Browne34, I am afraid that a user who is being mentored yet making disruptive edits could have his or her well-deserved ban put off longer than it should be in order to "give them a chance to improve". I feel like this was the case with Ionas, and we are currently in the middle of a situation with a user who is being allowed here under the circumstances that his "mentors" on en:wiki are "watching him closely". Someone who works hard at earning a ban deserves it and should get it. Having a mentor should not be a reason to keep them around and let them make disruptive edits. And since this community has shown itself to be overly nice in these sorts of situations in the past, I'm afraid this could be a more regular occurance in the future if we allow this project. Also, like others, I feel it's unnecessary since help is pretty readily available at this point for anyone who needs or desires it. · Tygrrr... 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I totally understand your point Tygrrr, but that is not the case. If a user is adopted, he still follows the normal procedures. If he is being disruptive, then I will automatically pull the plug on that user. Razorflame 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But if this system is put in place, you won't be the only mentor. You can't say for certain that everyone would be as strict. I just feel that people take mentorship to equal "s/he's trying very hard to improve him/herself so let's give them so more time." I don't think it's right that they get to get away with disruption because someone has decided to mentor them. · Tygrrr...

• Re We could make it a policy that all adopters have to follow. Razorflame 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I would ensure that this wouldn't happen. I've added a new condition to the adoption program! Razorflame 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Then if people don't agree with this, can I at least claim IuseRosary as a person that I would like to help personally? Razorflame 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to run it past us if you want to help a new user. We all participate in "running in" new users here and if you want to keep more of an eye on someone than the rest of us then do so. Gwib ^-(talk)- 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I thought we already had a mentoring program here.. A new user shows up, gets confused, and looks at the new changes. There that user picks a couple names that seems to be doing a lot of editing, clicks the talk button next to each of those names, types "Help", "How do i..", or something realy similar and whoever responds to them is their new mentor. Isnt that how it is supposed to work?? Seems to be work fine as it, no need for changes. :) -- Creol(talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  With regards to Creol's comment above, that doesnt exactly seem a very easy way of finding a 'mentor'. I would like to point out that currently, EN:WP has a mentoring system like the one proposed, and is doing very successfully... there have been no problems with it there... i am in fact a product of the EN:WP mentoring system ;p I think it would be a good idea to take it over here... Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  And do you think you, as a product of the en:wp mentoring system, are a better editor than those editors who are products of the SEWP mentorless system?. The system we have here works.--Bärliner 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  I don't mean to be boastful, but I think that if you compare how new I am as an editor with other editors that are the same 'age' as me, who have not been mentored, that I would in fact be better at this stage of development. Also, that is irrelevant... the main fact of the matter is that I myself would certainly be a worse editor if I had not been mentored, and would probably still be going round asking everyone questions all the time (less than now anyway lol), which can be very annoying and time consuming, and without one specific 'mentor', things can get very confusing as to who is going to answer what (as seen with the edit conflicts with Gwib and Razorflame when trying to answer me at the same time on the same thing because neither one was my mentor). I just want to make this great feature available for others who are in need as well... so that we can becoming a more loving, caring community, and give other less experienced editors an easier chance to advance. Ben.(Talk).(Changes) 18:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I cease and desist with this now. Razorflame 17:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest this discussion is stopped now. Razorflame has said he wishes to stop the project. Gwib andI have made a remark opposing it. Until Razorflames real wishes are known and what is the point of trying a project which the originator is not behind.--Bärliner 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Never mind my last comment. The only reason I said the last comment was because of the fact that everyone was voting against it. I should've waited for other people to voice their opinion. I am in fact very much so behind this, but only if it passes. My intentions are to help new users find experienced editors who are willing to help settle them into the going-ons here around the Simple English Wikipedia. Razorflame 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have considered this to have failed the vote. Support ratio was like 35-40% and I needed 80% support to go ahead with this, so I have finally decided to retire this suggestion. Razorflame 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Music?

Hello All, I am new here, Quite new. I have realised in my Short time here, that there is a major lack in pages about music artists and bands etc. I couldn't even find pages about Kate Nash, Paul Weller, Mark Ronson or KT Tunstall. These are just a few of the major recording artisits that don't have pages and need them. I have just Created a page on Calvin Harris (if someone wants to take a look at it for me), because I was quite shocked that this major artist did not already have a page, Don't even get me started on there being no page on Paul Weller. I propose a SEW Music Project, just like the one which I have recently found on EW. A project to better organize information in articles related to music. Because to be honest, it is a sorry state.

Thank-You for Reading IuseRosary (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We have no wiki-projects here right now because we just do not have a large enough number of editor to support one. Each editor is often so busy working on their own areas that there is little time for a project. It is suggested that if editor want to form a wiki-project that they first show that there will be support for it by using their user page(s) to co-ordinate the over all effort. -- Creol(talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Do You mean like to create a petition? IuseRosary 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not like a petition. Instead of creating the page at, for example, WikiProject:Music, the page could be created at user:IuseRosary/Music or user:IuseRosary/WikiProject Music or something like that. If many users use it and it gets big enough to deserve a common mainspace page, it can be moved. · Tygrrr... 20:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, that sounds fair enough. How can I make one of those pages. I'd like it tobe:user:IuseRosary/WikiProject,

How can I create that page? Thanks IuseRosary 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Click on this link: user:IuseRosary/WikiProject and create it with whatever you like. · Tygrrr... 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Readability tests

A request on the normal English Wikipedia was to implement the SMOG, I have since implemented a few more algorithms. The results from the the algorithms that use syllable count, if you wanted that then use a something like Word. It is running on the tool server so you can query any particular page, such as article on Music. --User:Dispenser 03:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Order

moved from Administrators' noticeboard

which order to these come in on a page? i was recently discussing this with someone, and we both came up with different thoughts:

• see also
• notes
• references
• external links

(that is the way it is done on EN wiki)... however, here, some of it is done that way, while some of it is done in various other ways... which one is the correct one? Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check the VG article list, articles like Muhammad, Homer Simpson or Jimi Hendrix all have references first. If we should follow a certain pattern, IMO it should be the pattern of the VG articles. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Gwib, I think you are misunderstanding what 'See Also' is... 'See Also' is a list of similar articles that can be internally found. none of those articles you provided had 'see also's... so your idea for following the VG status articles is already discredited. Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing they gave to a 'See Also' was on the Homer Simpson one, where a table of internal links were given at the bottom, but that follows the EN wikipedia example anyway... as they are not the same thing as 'see also'... and go at the end of everything. Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your list doesn't follow what you were arguing with me about before! You were putting the references below everything, below external links. Maybe you should stick to the same ideas if you want to argue for them. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not make my point clear, but no, that is not what I said... I in fact said the references should go below the 'see also', which you suggested the opposite was true. Also, I would like to remind you that this is not an 'argue'ment... but instead a friendly constructive debate Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Gwib, I did make my point perfectly clear: "i think the order is 'see also', 'references', and then 'External Links'"... see? i did not say references go below everything, i said they come after see also. And that was in my very first comment to you. It appears that you should stop accusing me of not reading properly, and go read properly the messages you yourself received. Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

According to en: and simple: guidelines both are accceptable. -- Creol(talk) 11:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Then what should happen? which one should be used? Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"both are accceptable"! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is so gwib, then I do not understand your reasoning behind rearranging my article? Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think both were acceptable and I'm sorry for that. Feel free to re-arrange it. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok ^^ However, I feel that in order to prevent situations like this from arising in the future, we should perhaps distinguish 'one' system... I do not mind 'whose system' this is... but the idea of the vagueness of the guidelines here, time could end up being wasted in the future deciding who wants to use which one. As long as there is only one option, that is the main thing... discuss? Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do like that sort of discussion. --Cethegus (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well... looking at it logically, which points of access would be most important to a user? Well I guess this gives us a chance to look at any layout, not just the most common ones, if we are going to think about this. I think that perhaps the internal and external links are probably the most used sections (the internal links are known as 'see also'... and the external links covers 'external links' and 'further reading'), as this is where users will find where else they are able to get more information on the subject. The references are used really only to check that what the article is saying is true, which an everyday reader would not use. I think that the 'see also' boxes, like that mentioned at the bottom of the 'Homer Simpson' page, should perhaps take a position with the 'internal and external links', as it is also providing them with more reading on the topic. However, it should be noted that what can be seen as the current unnofficial 'default' for these kind of internal link boxes is in fact at the bottom of the page, presumably in order to stop such a large visual object causing a 'break' in the middle of the text (be it references and links, it still acts as a kind of physical barrier on the page). Therefore, it could be suggestably kept at the bottom? I also found some pages on ENWikipedia with a 'notes' section, and have yet to come accross them here, I do not really have an oppinion yet on these... as I don't quite understand their usage, pardon my ignorance. Well those are my current thoughts... Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 13:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When I have come across a "Notes" section, it has been because "References" was a list of books used as general sources whilst "Notes" was used as footnotes, that is, references within the <ref></ref>tags. I don't think it necessary to have separate heading for the two, both are references--Bärliner 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes I think I would agree. So we are now left with:

• 'Internal Links'("See Also"...)
• 'Internal Link Boxes'
• 'External Links'(with this, would come 'Further Reading', as both are places where the reader can read up more about a subject, but one is online, the other is literary)
• 'References'(and 'Notes')

unless we wish to divide them further? or merge them further? Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 14:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the order

• Internal links (simplifed as "See also")

  External links (simplifed as "Other websites")

  References, because they include footnotes and thus are at the foot of the page

  Link boxes at the very end for a selfish reason. It helps make sure that the page is read before referring people elsewhere.--Bärliner 14:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent point Bärliner... the reference section contains footnotes, and therefore should go at the foot of the page... so do we agree that the 'references' will be at the bottom?

With regards to the link boxes, if they are positioned with the other internal links, then surely it would mean they are after the rest of the 'reading text' anyway, so the page would be read before referring people elsewhere? Ben^{(Talk).(Changes)} 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what has been decided? I(am)(ARice) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

SimpleWikiProject Music, Wants You!

Hello All, I have recently created a project on SEW, It is Called SimpleWikiProject Music. It aims to help improve and expand the pages about music here on Simple English Wikipedia. This covers a lot of ground including: Bands & Artists, Record Companies, Musicals, Composers and Albums. If anybody is interested, Please go to the project page and sign up, there are instructions on how to sign up and everything on the project page. So please head over to SimpleWikiProject Muisc if you're intrested. Special Barnstars will be awarded to those users who help the project

Thank-You for reading

IuseRosary 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

IamAR

Moved to the Admin Noticeboard --Gwib ^-(talk)- 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)