Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 31

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.

Twinkle

A few days ago, someone asked me if there was Twinkle on this wiki. I told him there wasn't as Twinkle isn't configured for this wiki. Using it will only create a lot of red links and headache.

Here comes the question: Do we have a need for Twinkle? Chenzw Talk 14:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be useful on RC patrol. Majorly (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it can be useful on Recent Changes patrolling, the amount of headaches that it would invariably cause would be especially hard and might not be worth it's while in the long run. I, for one, don't like Twinkle because it doesn't work on IE, which is the Internet broswer that I use nearly 100% of the time that I am on here (except when I'm on a Mac, where I then use Safari). Therefore, I would say that it wouldn't be beneficial to try to get it onto this site. I am quite happy with the VandalWarner gadget and would love it if it could just stay that way. Cheers, Razor flame 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books on simple wiki

Hi! I'm a new user, well, new for simple wikipedia. In the italian wikipedia I used to work mostly on articles about books. I was wondering if any of you could tell me whether there is a special project for books and the guidelines of this project. Thank you for your help.--Austroungarika (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome. Since we are only very few users, there are no Projects to speak of. As far as I know there is no project about books. --Eptalon (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think about it. I'll look up for good examples of articles, then. Thanks anyway!--Austroungarika hi! 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have projects, just not in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. To find out more about WikiProjects, you should check out WP:PROJECT. There is a WikiProject Novels that you may join if you like. · Ty grrr... 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I had a question; pictures on the main Wikipedia, what can we use? Like they have them and are licensed for that, but do we fit into the same category? If you have information about what we can and cannot use on articles (I've only used ones in the public domain), I'd appreciate it. Thanks, AmericanEagle 05:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Creol(talk) 05:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest new look for MediaWiki:Uploadtext

Here.-- † Christian Man 16 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? The border? Majorly (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The border and updated photos. I can make changes if need be cause th old makes me think it's outdated...that doesn't mean it is though....I do think it needs a new look.-- † Christian Man 16 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complex

Articles are still too complex on Simple English Wikipedia. Does anyone wanna help me simplify all of them? I just click on random page to do it. Necknoise (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are doing that. A lot of our articles are fine though. Majorly (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name one that needs it.-- † Christian Man 16 12:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seaborgium. Necknoise (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (Can't bother doing my signature)[reply]

Shut up everyone

Sidebar

There seems to be something wrong with the sidebar. The link to Simple talk has been replaced by the default one (Current events). I have purged the cache twice. Is it some bug with the MediaWiki software? Chenzw Talk 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just temporarily redirected Wikipedia:Current events to Simple talk to temporarily fix the problem till a permanent one can be found.-- † Christian Man 16 13:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It occasionally hiccups back to its default setting for some reason. It normally corrects itself after a while or it can be forced to reset by just blank saving (edit/save with no changes just to refresh linking) the sidebar page. After that, purging the cache clears up the issue. -- Creol(talk) 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to the deletion policy

I would like to propose adding a new rule under the general deletion rule:

G13 Pages that are complete and utter spam can be quickly deleted under this rule.

What do you guys think about this proposed addition? I did not notice that there was any such rule for spam that we have here and I think that we need a rule for spam because I think that spam is a major problem on the Wikipedias. Cheers, Razor flame 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not covered in G11 advertising? Majorly (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, never mind. Cheers, Razor flame 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good articles

The instructions are real unclear... how do I nominate an article to become one? Maxim_(talk) 21:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to list it on Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles, and people can vote on it, Majorly (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I gave a second look through the history and see how it works... but I honestly don't see any point in voting. It ought to be a discussion on whether it meets the criteria... --Maxim_(talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote/!vote/discussion - it's all the same to me. What article were you thinking of? Majorly (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking in general. In theory, I can make my enwiki FAs all VGAs here. And some other... more vital topics. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have two set of criteria one are called Good Articles (Criteria at WP:GOOD), the other at WP:VGOOD (Very good articles). The good articles are easier to meet (Shorter, 3.5k "net" as opposed to 5k, "Comprehensiveness" criterion dropped, Good articles allow for a small number of red links). Currently, there are 13 VGAs, and 12 GAs. Of the total of 31 VGAs before the introduction of Good articles, 7 were demoted to Good Articles, 11 became regular articles. The last promotions are Timpani (December 07, VGA) and Coffee (23 February 08, GA). --Eptalon (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of course: 9 criteria, 70% support, with 5 votes minimum for GAs; 10 criteria, 80% support with 6 votes minimum for VGAs; Otherwise voting rules are what you would expect: only named users, one vote per user, no socks.--Eptalon (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have experience writing/helping etc. with 6 FAs (I think) on enwiki, so the standards here seem much easier (except the simple part. :-p) Maxim_(talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might indeed look so, but there has been no VGA since the new criteria came into effect.--Eptalon (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you have VGAs on enwiki then the real problem will be indeed to simpify them sufficiently. I hope very much you try. --Cethegus (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard for vandalism

There is a lot of vandalism on progress! Please help! Necknoise 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Firstly, we are taking care of it :) Don't worry! Secondly, there is a noticeboard for vandalism: Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. - Huji ^reply 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't need to use it. There are currently at least three administrators active. The board should be used rarely when it is not clear there are active administrators. You are also greatly exaggerating the amount of vandalism, we are not experiencing "a lot". - EchoBravo contribs 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes with tagging pages to be deleted. It's a waste of time if they're going to be deleted the moment you click save. Majorly (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alan - table

Sorry to bother you, but I (again) am asking if anyone would like to make a table for this page?: alan#Discography? I don't know how to make a table. The desired columns are separated by a vertical line | . Sorry to bother you, and thank you very much for helping, it is much appreciated. — This unsigned comment was added by Alexhl (talk • changes).

Election Notice

The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.

Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008>.

The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.

Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.

Further information can be found at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en>. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation>.

For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette

British Members of Parliament

I'm starting to add all current British Members of Parliament here. I've already done Diane Abbott, and I'm taking the basic info from [1]. I'll create the categories needed soonish. Anyone want to help me you'll be most welcome, as there's 646 of them. --JulesN Talk 02:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've done the first six. Here's to all the rest. --JulesN Talk 03:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've created Category:UK MPs 2005-. Off to bed now. --JulesN Talk 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query. I just did the sensible thing and read What Simple English Wikipedia is not and I see that the articles I've just created might fall foul of it. Could someone knowledgeable want to give a view on this. --JulesN Talk 03:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given we are looking at members of a national parliament (not some local city's ruling body), I would think nearly all members would be considered notable and worthy of inclusion. (There is bound to be a junior member from some backwater district no one has ever heard of and has never done anything of note, but most should meet notability standards) My only issue would be with basic wiki-linking and categories for these articles. First impression looking at a sample of the articles was that countries were not linked. Not exactly huge in and of itself, but indicative that other terms are not being linked either. The first reference to any country should be linked. (most notably with Wales as the country and nationality (Welsh) can lead to some people being confused and it is best to play it safe) "So-and-So (born - died) is/was a English politician. (S)He is/was a member of Parliament from (was elected to Parliament in) ..." should generally be the basic start of most of these articles. As to Categories, simple is best. There is little need to separate into separate years as we are not likely to get a large number of MPs from past years. Even with US Congress members which do include about 200 years worth of people articles, we only separate by which house (Senators and Representatives) and at most separate as "Senators from State". Separating by year is probably going to be overkill. Also, if you are going to be working on a large number of people related articles such as these, check out the {{BD}} template. It will save you a lot of time in dealing with birth/living people (or death)/ category sorting for all the articles and prevent others from having to come behind you and replace the categories. -- Creol(talk) 07:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have redone the Category system. We now have Category:Members of the British Parliament (in British politicians, with a subcat Category:Members of the British House of Commons; I can see a category added for the house of Lords. The information for British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish constituency has been dropped; the information about the political party has also been dropped for now. (Perhaps re-add in some way). We now have 13 people in the House of Commons category. There are 54 pages in the British Prime ministers category; can we perhaps also classify some of them as Lords and Commoners? --Eptalon (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the British categories are all subdivided into thier sub-nationalities, I would suggest keeping the Scottish/Welsh/N Irish/English politicians as well as House of Commons for these as it is their tie back to the main peoples categories and not subcats of each other. -- Creol(talk) 00:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help and suggestions. I'm currently working on adding pages for frontbench MPs and the current cabinet is done. --JulesN Talk 21:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no objections, I'm planning on adding the following categories.

Members of the British Parliament

British MPs by political party
British Lords by political party
Members of the British Parliament for Northern Irish constituencies
Members of the British Parliament for Scottish constituencies

etc

and also

Conservative Party politicians (UK)

Conservative Party MPs (UK)
Conservative Party MEPs (UK)
Conservative Party Peers

And to make similar categories for the other political parties. - JulesN Talk 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stats updated

I added some 2008 stats of Simple English Wikipedia to User:Huji/Stats/2008 tables. If you need further information, please contact me on my talk page. - Huji ^reply 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Pokemon articles into List of Pokémon

As others might have noticed, I just finished putting the {{mergeto}} template onto every Pokemon page that we have requesting that they be moved into the List of Pokémon article. I think that we should make it like the English Wikipedia's list and seperate it into a list for each batch of 20 Pokemon. What do others think about this suggested merge? Do others agree with me? Cheers, Razor flame 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, I'm not real sure of anything on this, but I think they should keep their own articles.-- † Christian Man 16 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the way that the English Wikipedia handled this issue, they seperated them into like 25 pages of 20 Pokemon each. Each of these pages still have what is on each of our pages, it's just they are more consolidated and I think that this would be the way to go. I suggested the merge into the same article because we can use List of Pokemon as the base for the rest of them. I would really like to hear from other editors about what they think of this idea. Cheers, Razor flame 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was considerable controversy on this on en, if I remember correctly. Nano chip08 ^Microchip08 on_WHEELS 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the English Wikipedia now even has a policy named after that incident, the Pokemon policy....Cheers, Razor flame 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New QD replacement?

Please give feedback on User:Microchip08/Qd-test. It's my replacement for the current QD template. It is similar to the old version, but when you type, for instance, {{qd}}, it comes up as "A4: Not notable" and some such. It also does that if you type {{qd}}. Another example would be {{qd|spam}} and {{qd|G11}}. I'll change it tomorrow if no-one says anything. I've checked it works. mC⁸ 19:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links should work, now. mC⁸ 10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be kind

On this page, it was posted that it was a proposed guideline since the year 2006. Since then, there have been no discussions into whether or not this should or should not be a policy page. Following Eptalon's initiative in his post about Wikipedia:Criteria for Administratorship, I went ahead and made this a guideline for the same reason that Wikipedia:Criteria for Administratorship was made a policy. It is pretty much a common sense guideline that every Wikipedia needs and should have, and I definitely think that we should make this a guideline or policy page on this Wikipedia because of how often we are using or referencing this page. While I do believe that we should discuss this before we change it, I still think that I should do the same that Eptalon did in his previous attempt at this. Any ideas or thoughts about this idea? Cheers, Razor flame 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFA was actually made a guideline; I would not have dared make it policy, without a vote. --Eptalon (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox musical artist

The Origin option on this info box, what does it mean? Does it mean Place discovered or Place born?-- † Christian Man 16 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Simple English and English?

Can someone tell me the difference between Simple English and English? Nnguyen (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome. The difference is not that easy to tell. What we try here at SEWP is to make the articles in such a way that they are easy to understand. There are many people who have learnt English as a second language. Their skill at speaking or understanding the language varies. We therefore try to make the articles in such a way that they are easy to understand, both for those who have learnt English as a second language, and for native English speakers. Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia has more on this. --Eptalon (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Chemistry!

Finding there to be little information in the articles about chemistry, I have made this Wikiproject to help expand and create articles about chemistry.

Tanthanyes (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

How to move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAHU!JPN (talk • contribs)

There is a move tab (Here it is the 6th from the left, called move); It is only available to registered users. Because you are new, it might not be there yet. Make a few edits, and wait out the time. If you want to suggest a page be moved, ask someone, or put it on the talk page of the page to be moved. --Eptalon (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ヰキプロジェクト (Wikiproject)

JPOP、CPOP&KPOPについての知識がある場合、このWIKIPROJECTにご参加ください。MAHU!JPN (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translated: Please participate in this wikiproject when you have knowledge of JPOP, CPOP or KPOP. Chenzw Talk 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J-ROCKは善もですか？ Tenth Plague (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

I've taken and adapted some modules from enwiki, especially the warn feature. I'm planning to make RfD and QD hacks, too. If anybody is interested, look around Special:Prefixindex/User:Maxim/ for files with twinkle in them. I'm planning to make a general reference page for this set of scripts when I transfer more scripts, modify them for use here, and get the time/not be lazy to actually make a write-up. Maxim_(talk) 23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Monobook look

I was just thinking....Y'all know how there are places for custom MySpace layouts....is there anyplace like that that does Monobook layouts? If there isn't somebody should start one...thoughts?-- † Christian Man 16 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See m:Gallery of user styles. Majorly (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That helped but I still can't get the Nav box and tool box to change colors (which is all I lack...)-- † Christian Man 16 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me on this please?-- † Christian Man 16 17:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

...that having a DYK section like at enwiki may encourage users when creating articles, to make a decent article and not a one-sentence stub? What do you think? Maxim_(talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That I find it hard to believe.-- † Christian Man 16 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to work on a wiki as small as this I'm afraid. There's nothing wrong with stubs. Majorly (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are too small of a Wikipedia for this strategy to work. Unlike at the English Wikipedia, we actually like stubs, so I'm afraid that I have to agree with Majorly. Cheers, Razor flame 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need DYK. Special:Newpages right now is two days old. Okay, I know that new users don't check that, but still. Cassandra (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Does anyone know how to log in to Simple via AWB? When I press log in it brings me to EN. SwirlBoy 39 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Options -> User and Project preferences -> Language: Simple. -- Creol(talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Very) Good articles

Hello; some of us have worked hard, to present three articles to the community:

Giant Panda is currently undergoing voting on the Very Good article proposals page
Carbon and Charles Spurgeon are trying to become Good articles

There are a minimum number of votes required (5 votes for good articles, 6 votes for very good articles). It is very frustrating for the contributors to see that articles fail because they do not reach that minimum number of votes. I therefore invite you to go have a look, and cast your vote or post comments. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editior Review

Recently, I have seen at least 2 entries on the RfA retained solely for constructive critizizm. One edit summary yesterday was "Brought back due to authors request to view constructive critisism". For this, I propose we have a editior review page to avoid having RfA being used as a Editior Review. Before we know it, we may have people with 1 edit running for RfA, and then see them restore it with summaries of "Brought back due to authors request to view constructive critisism". -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user running for adminship with 1 edit would be closed per WP:SNOW, so I don't think that's really an issue. The current RfA has been kept open because no valid reason has been given to close it. However, I don't see a problem with a review page. I don't know why people are so concerned with what others think about them, but if there's interest I could see a possible use. · Ty grrr... 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much what other users think of them as what other users think that they should improve on. What would this editor review page have? Sections on how to improve editing or simply a place to correct user mistakes? --Gwib^-(talk)- 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto EN -- Da Punk '95 talk 06:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Da Punk on this. en:Wikipedia:Editor reivew is a process that is actually used by quite a few editors over on the English Wikipedia, so I have to say that I would love to see it at work here. Cheers, Razor flame 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I personally think not having a snowball's chance in hell is not a valid reason for anything. Maybe we should discuss this and create an WP:SNOW page and have it locally, either saying that it doesn't exist, or a simplified copy (as it probably is quite core to this project). Nano chip08 ^Microchip08 on_WHEELS 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will now Be Bold and create a draft in my sandbox. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - WP:ER, and we already have a review. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to made clear somewhere that the results of a Editor Review will not necessarily translate into a successful RfA. - EchoBravo contribs 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finito

The finished product can be found HERE! Well done to Da Punk for the idea itself and creating it. There are still minor tweeks and I'm not sure how well it will be archived, but overall this was a good idea and well executed. --Gwib^-(talk)- 11:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Help Needed

please help, the IP address 165.155.200.89 (talk) is repeadedly vandalising the Season article. I have warned him, but he continues. Can I please have some help from an admin or beaureaucrat to block him!

Done. In future, post messages here to keep things in order. Thanks for notifying us so quickly though. --Gwib^-(talk)- 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I can sleep easier now... But sorry that I did post here, I was just kinda stressed and in a bit of a panic. --Kiamnomch - talk - contribs 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]