Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 23

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.

Help:Creating a Signature

I've been debating whether or not to create this page or not for a while, and I've decided to ask the community's opinion before I go ahead and create this page. This help file would focus on helping new users create their own signatures here on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have been wanting to write this for a while, but I am not sure if it is needed. Any suggestions? Razor flame 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write a draft in your userspace of what you propose. It would help you and us--Bärl iner 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! I'll get started on this right away. Razor flame 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished drafting my version of the article I have asked about. You can view it here. Thank you for hearing me out! Razor flame 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Help Article

Hello all! I have made a new Help sheet called Help:Making a signature and it is now a proposed help article. I would appreciate any comments or concerns, as well as possible changes that I could make to it voiced here as soon as possible. Thanks for listening: Razor flame 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does no-one wish to give me criticism on this page? Razor flame 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are perfect:)--Bärl iner 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to hear what other people have to say about it, though. It's my first attempt at a legitamite help article. Razor flame 14:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting to its talk page. - Huji ^reply 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting):To talk about this, feel free to comment at the talk page Razor flame 18:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat problem

Is anyone else having a problem with HotCat adding the changed category to the bottom of the entire article (i.e. after interwiki)? Because of this problem, I haven't been using it. Any thoughts? · Ty grrr... 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been noticing this as well. I am sorry, but I have no explanation as I am not a techincal kind of person. Razor flame 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make a group of recategorisations, then run AWB and can order the cats, template and get rid of white space all at the same time. I ran several hundred asteroids through this arvo. So I will happily run through anything that the Wikiproject Categories does, as it is well worth being given mainspace (shameless plug for tygrrr's idea) --Bärl iner 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat is mostly used on Commons, where interwikis are not used, and addition of categories to the end of the page content is appropriate. Having every page to be checked with AWB is no fun, so I think I'm also going to avoid using HotCat. - Huji ^reply 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people

Do we have a policy on biographies of living people like on en Wikipedia? If not, shouldn't we create one? adit (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:RULES you read that "if a specific rule does not yet exist here, or if a situation is not covered by the policies and guidelines that exist here, we will look at the policies and guidelines on the main English Wikipedia". - Huji ^reply 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VGA criteria--Final day!

Today is the last day to discuss the new criteria for VGAs. The final 2 points we've been discussing this last week and a half have basically reached consensus. I would really like a few people to come and comment on the final wording to make sure there is no opposition or word tweaking, though. The link, once again, is Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New. Thanks, everybody. · Ty grrr... 15:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Switzerland

Hey all! I have been extremely interested in Switzerland since I've joined this site, and I have just proposed a new Wikiproject to this site. I know that there have been a recent surge in the creation of these projects, but I believe that my project is definitely a worthy addition to this Wikipedia. If anyone would like to join it, you can find the link here. Thank you, and I hope to see many of you join this project! Razor flame 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Currently we have a total of 28 admins (including 'crats and CUs). While the vast majority of all active editors are now admins, I have done some calculations and found out that there is currently 4 users who are non-admins but have more than 1000 edits (regardless of experience). Perviously the community has discussed of a possible 100% admin wiki. Currently 87.5% of all users with more than 1k edits are admins. To me I find those figures are quite amazing between the admin : active user ratio, compared to the en wiki for instance.

Note: As much as I know, I have only found 4 users w/ more than 1k edits. I'm not 100% sure about it so if anyone finds my mistake, please correct me. Thanx:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User	Edits	Last edit
Hailey_C._Shannon	6k+	January 2008
Razorflame	11K+	January 2008
Bhadani	1505	June 2007
Zephyr2k	1296	December 2006
Snake311	5K+	January 2008
Cethegus	4K+	January 2008
Hikitsurisan	2500	January 2008
Rimshot	1450	November 2007

Plus blocked or banned users Ionas, Benniguy and KA (counting all her sock's edits) as well as former admins Sean Williams and Tdxiang. So technically, 13 users have 1K+ edits and are not (currently) admins. Seven (possibly eight) of those have edited in the last 30 days. -- Creol(talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were some reservations as to promoting Snake311 (here); Razorflame has not yet reached his three months; Hailey C. Shannon's last nomination was in 2006; not sure about whether Rimshot is still around. Seeing the above table, I would therefore propose to open an RfA for Hailey C: Shannon, Snake311, Cethegus, Hikitsurian, and Rimshot (should he still be around). All of them are active editors, I am quite confident most of them can handle the admin tools. What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. While I know some on the list are worthy of support, I would be happier if they stood themselves, rather than on the basis of a mass RfA. Eptalon's idea is more like offering the tools to anyone who has qualified, which is reminiscent of the automatic promotion discussion we have had before --Bärl iner 13:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of listing them separately; 5 (4) RfAs that are completely independent; Meaning that if of the 4, two do not get promted, we do get two new admins. At no time was I thinking about a collective RfA. Such a thing would indeed be quite pointless. --Eptalon (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it would be seperate RfAs.--Bärl iner 14:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I've seen what Snake311 and Cethegus have been doing on this site, and I would be more than willing to nominate both of them for RfA if you would like me to. Razor flame 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have perviously offered Cethegus for adminship on this talk page but has rejected it. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 21:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Oh and I believe that Nishkid64 also has more than 1k edits. He also has perviously ran for adminship too. For me, I was planning to have my RfA at the same time with Razorflame's which is like 3 weeks away. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, if I plan on having an RfA then. I might wait longer. You've been a good editor, and I would not mind nominating you for administrator again. Razor flame 21:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Events

I have noticed that simple English Wikipedia does not have a current events page. I think it would be very useful to have something like this. For an exemple of what it could look like see this page --Anonymous101 (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what Wikinews is for? Razor flame 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikipedias do have current event articles similar to wikinews, but they use it for encyclopedic purposes, not to write one-page articles based on a speific time or date. Also some mini-current event artcles occur here too, i.e., tropical cyclones in a hurricane season whenever a hurricane forms. But in order to have current event articles happen here too, we would need more people to be dedicated to monitor the news and update the article(s) whenever needed. So far, I don't think we have any yet. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snake said it all; I think we don't ned this now. - Huji ^reply 22:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --Gwib^-(talk)- 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) It looks like a good idea to do; but I do not think we currently have the resources (editors) for it. --Eptalon (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Denominations again

Hello again, there seem to be some denominations which are rather new (established in the last 25 years or so); one of them is the United Church of God; it split from the en:Worldwide Church of God, founded by an Adventist; some people see this as a cult. I have written a very basic stub on the United Church of God; the problem is now that the Worldwide Church of God was the parent of more Churches; so before we create more such (possibly on the brink of notability) entries for such movements, would it not be better to focus on getting one such movement for every "bigger" branch of Christianity; like one Anabaptist, one Adventist (..); ideally, we get the one with the most influence or members? --Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for VGAs proposed guideline-->guideline

I have moved Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles/New to Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles. I still have the page listed as a proposed policy/guideline though. My question now is: what do we need to do to make it official? Eptalon suggested a week-long vote. I am sort of inclined to think that they've been posted for a month and a half and thus have had that long (plus the time before that when we were discussing whether or not we need new criteria) for someone to oppose and have met no real opposition. I think this could be a situation where we could use "silence indicates approval". If people think we need a vote though, I'm certainly fine with that. I just am trying to get the process up and running again as quickly as possible. What do others think? · Ty grrr... 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot get all users of this wiki anyhow. But we should vote and see if we need a whole week to get votes of the majority of frequent users. --Cethegus (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make it simple: Lets vote, for a week. Given how long this has been in the making, I think it should not be too hard to get the regulars to agree. Let's say, 10 votes, with 80% support to pass? - voting the usual way (i.e. all named users that are currently not banned can vote; takes a bureaucrat to announce the result)? --Eptalon (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that people have had more than enough time to log their objections if they have any on this subject. Consensus was reached, good enough. - BrownE34 talk contribs 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, It's a guideline now. Next item. Good article criteria? (Ideally a subset of very good article criteria); checking the current VGAs for compliance?--Eptalon (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should check all of the current VGA's for the new guidelines. This is the next step we need to take. After that, we need to get the voting/proposals for VGA's back online. Razor flame 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we evaluate the current VGAs now before we have our new GA criteria set, if the articles don't meet the new VGA criteria, they will have to be demoted to normal articles. If we settle on the GA criteria first, they could possibly be dropped to that, instead. I'm not saying this is what we should do, just saying that's the current situation. I would suggest we create the demotion page and start working on the GA criteria. I don't think they'll take anywhere near as long to decide on. Once the demotion page is created, we can start evaluating if we like. Or wait. It really doesn't matter too much. Maybe everything can be compliant within 2 weeks and there won't be a problem.

Btw, I can't express how happy I am that we've finally got the new VGA criteria! It's a long process but we're coming along really well, and I hope everyone will stick with me and try not to roll your eyes (too much) when you hear me ranting about "come comment on the GA criteria!" :-) · Ty grrr... 02:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion. · Ty grrr... 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles

Hello all, I have launched the discussion on Good Article criteria on the page Wikipedia talk:Requirements for good articles - Ideally we should be able to reach agreement faster than with VGAs.--Eptalon (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is under way! The talk page has been conveniently divided to discuss each point. I think we can reach consensus very quickly since we've got a good idea where we're heading after discussing GAs and VGAs for almost 2 whole months now. Come share your thoughts and get us ever closer to unfreezing this thing! I am setting the deadline at Friday, February 8th. This is less than 2 weeks away, but I think we can do it if we really try. :-) · Ty grrr... 16:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Admins from all projects and all languages may join #wikimedia-admin. Anyone already in the channel (like me; nick=Mike_lifeguard) can invite you in temporarily; ask a chanop for an invite exemption. We share IPs of cross-wiki spambots/vandals, open proxies; you can also get help with complex admin tasks, and get second opinions from other sysops. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Core articles

I just noticed this and thought I should bring it to anyone's attention who hadn't noticed yet. About 2 months ago, Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have was updated from the main list at Meta. We are actually now missing quite a few of these very important articles. I think we should try to make it a priority to create the missing pages, especially since the list at Meta says "this project hopes to eventually create easily translatable versions of these articles, possibly containing core information at simple:Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have." and "The topics will eventually all be linked to articles in the Simple English Wikipedia." · Ty grrr... 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the Congo, Ganges, and Indus Rivers. Razor flame 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:I've finished the article for the Congo River. Razor flame 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Albrecht Dürer, and then will start on John Maynard Keynes.--Bärl iner 11:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll at least get some stubs started on a few random ones. нмŵוτн τ 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) I would just like to tell everyone that I spent about 40 minutes making the page Gravitation for this site. I would like to recommend people to come and work on the simplification of this article, as it is an important one. I spent a lot of time on it, so I hope that you guys like it! Razor flame 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Are there speedy deletions here? нмŵוτн τ 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{qd}} Razor flame 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! нмŵוτн τ 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cat:Discrimination...

Hello,

I have made a new category Discrimination. I think it would be good if we could put articles that deal with discriminating one group of people in there. I do however see a problem: There is a category Nazism. This could also have cat Discrimination added; however, not everything in there necessarily deals with discriminating against some (groups of) people. An interesting question would also be if there is a name to some of Israel's policy not to give (some) Arabs full rights; and if we have a (simple?) article on that? --Eptalon (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Seems like a great cat. I added homophobia. нмŵוτн τ 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A no concensus RfD?

the RfD here reached no concensus. What exactly is supposed to happen when an article's RfD doesn't reach a concensus? Does the article automatically go back up for voting, or does anything else notable happen? What are we to do about this? Razor flame 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's kept, of course. No consensus means "do nothing". Majorly (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I just didn't know what would become of this. Thanks for the response, Majorly. Razor flame 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here

Show me around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpen2 (talk • contribs)

Move Category:C-pop

Somebody please move "Category:C-pop" to "Category:C-Pop"

Categories can not be moved.
C-pop is correct. Popular is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. The naming is in keeping with naming conventions and the English wikipedia. -- Creol(talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I moved C-Pop to C-pop a while ago. - Huji ^reply 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you change it? ;-)) --Cethegus (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New category Intelligent design

Hello,

I made a new category Category:Intelligent design. It is rooted in Philosophy and Religion; Given what i know of the concept, we should perhaps root it in Christianity instead of religion. While the concept itslself (whatever you might think of it) is not Christian in nature, I am not aware of any non-christian ID ideas...

Comments? --Eptalon (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely in Christianity. Archer7 - talk 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Christianity, thanks --Eptalon (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VGA

Hey everybody. I have recently put Moulin Rouge! up for very good article status. So, You should all go and vote here. IuseRosary ^(talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'd missed the huge bold black thick letters just above your nomination, but the VG article process is frozen. This generally means that people can't vote since new criteria is being decided on. --Gwib^-(talk)- 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you've all been discussing it for months now! IuseRosary ^(talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has been done: We have agreed on new criteria for VGAs. But since all the current VGAs need to be checked if they meet the new criteria, we also need criteria for good articles (Which we are currently discussing); We should be done by February 8 (see above). At that point, we can start the good article process. Once we are done re-checking all VGAs (There will be a few demotions, I fear), we can re-start the VGA process. In other words, be patient for another week, and join the GA discussion, if you like. --Eptalon (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cool :-) IuseRosary ^(talk) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could spend the time finding images to illustrate your article that will not get you banned from commons--Bärl iner 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I've put one on - a picture of the Moulin Rouge to show the setting for the film. I may put pics of Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman tonight if i can find some sutible enough. IuseRosary ^(talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use this time to make the article better, to the point that you could be sure it would be selected as VGA when the time comes. - Huji ^reply 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

HI, I am a newbie here, but I have edited a few pages. I am a student so I want to make every page like someone my age could understand, because there are some things we won't; so yeah...Frenchorama (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard then! You might want to read WP:RULES and WP:HOW first. - Huji ^reply 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote Wikipedia:Vandalism

I updated/rewritten Wikipedia:Vandalism to have more information, please check over my work. Oysterguitarist 16:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Upload

Where can I upload pictures to put on articles? Thanks! SwirlBoy39 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also reply on my talk page too please? Thank you. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures must be uploaded to commons.wikimedia.org first. Any picture there is automatically chosen for display --Bärl iner 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software change?

Has there been a software change recently. Template:Commonwealth nations is one of a couple I have noticed no longer display as they used to. If they display at all. --Bärl iner 13:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update, we have collapsible navboxes, but what needs to be done to have the templates display properly.--Bärl iner 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the preprocessor has be re-written, you can re-port bugs at Meta here. Oysterguitarist 14:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have reported the bug --Bärl iner 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Islamic culture?

Hello,

I created the new Category:Mosques, and found that we have very few articles on mosques. I therefore think it would be great if we could get at least articles on those mosques listed at the English Mosque page.

What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article process / Proposed things to do

Hello all,

there are still 3 days left to discuss the Requirements for Good Articles (here); most of us have reached agreement, and we are into details. Currently outstanding

Length of a good article
Support percentage needed for vote (though this is pretty much settled).

Otherwise, this Saturday, the Good Article process will be started; there are currently also 10 VGAs that probably need work (or get demoted).They are listed here. The most common reason is that they are too short (3-3.5k as opposed to the required 5k). Please note that the requirements for very good articles have changed; they can be found here.

Therefore, please help us:

Fix those articles listed (most are too short), but also by adding other things; some like Pope John Paul II need references; Caffeine as well as being to short, needs other Websites.
Find other VGAs that do not currently meet the criteria, and list them.
Contribute your opinion to the Good article guideline (if you have not already)

In the hope that all those bored editors find new things they can do... --Eptalon (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a point we need to discuss. Are we going to simply review the current VGAs after Friday and do automatic demotion (to the highest level they can meet) if they don't meet the current requirements? Or are we going to put them through the 2 week demotion process? I'd like to hear some opinions on what we should do. · Ty grrr... 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be to save what is possible; ie. the 2 week fixing/demotion process; Mali is the prototype of a good article, in my opinion, though. (If you have not noticed, I am currently working on Caffeine). Also the link to the tool that can say how big an article is would perhaps be useful on the proposed demotions page.--Eptalon (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have an opinion? · Ty grrr... 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mine have all been covered :) --Gwib^-(talk)- 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But my comment was asking people to pick one of 2 options. Which do you like: reviewing the current VGAs after Friday and doing an automatic demotion (to the highest level they can meet) if they don't meet the current requirements? Or putting them through the 2 week demotion process? · Ty grrr... 15:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should just look them over and do an automatic demotion. Razor flame 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello everyone, I am from the English wikipedia and decided to get involved in the simple English wikipedia, is there a template like this one ? Thanks. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is;) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 06:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there wasn't I was going to create it, but you did, thanks. Earthbendingmaster (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]