Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 38

Main page redesign proposal

Hey there everyone. I was thinking of having a complete revamp (redesign) of the current main page design. In my opinion, the current design is just too "boring" and it doesn't really attract anyone to visit Simple English Wikipedia. Something more dazzling and exciting might make more people visit Simple English Wikipedia, of course, to learn new things and ideas. I would be happy to do this (I design user pages over an en), as I'm currently adding my proposal for a new main page design over at the English Wikipedia. But I think everyone should pitch in and help the cause and not just me, that is, if the community decides to to change the main page design. I'm open for supports, opposes, and thoughts. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a design in userspace; that's probably the best way thing to compare against to see if anyone wants to go ahead with redesigning. —Giggy 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I just want a few other opinions first. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the current Main Page. I like the two top boxes (About Us and Selected Article), I like the colours. But the rest of the Main Page is a mess. Go for it, show us what you've got :) ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 07:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kennedy. :D -- RyanCross (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. But I do agree with Giggy, you should create your own sandbox, and do it there. Incase your coding becomes broked. Also, all the images have a white background, whats up with that? I notice all images here have that. Bug? Error? ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 08:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Okay. I've created the new main page redesign proposal. It is located at User:RyanCross/Sandbox. I would gladly take any suggestions, supports, opposes, ect. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really want to either support or oppose, so instead I'll just give you my thoughts?:

• Like the search box at the top - Thanks :)
• Like the images on the right side of the titles - Thanks :)
• I think you should change the colours on the title bars (About / Selected Articles) they are a bit bland. -  Done
• The About part is very wide, whereas the Selected Article has been squashed. -  Done
• Maybe add some text to the left of the search box. "Find an article:" or something? -  Not done. That's actually impossible. It's okay the way it is.

Just my thoughts.. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 10:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have put back in the coloured background you took out Ryan, as it is possible to fill the whole space (if you actually don't want it now, just undo the revision).
• I think that the text at the top of the page should be centred, so it is above the search box, not to the rleft.
• Some of the boxes have rounded corners, but the VGA and top boxes don't. I don't know whether you want the top boxes to be rounded but the VGA one should be.
• Err... there was something else, but I've forgotten. Perhaps I'll tell you later.

Thanks, - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

This is my proposal. It's based on Ryan's but ive taken on some of the above, and added a few links. Working on new color scheme now (User:Da Punk '95/Main Page draft) --  Da Punk '95  talk  10:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is still practically the same as proposal 1...

I like the links you have added and the changed caption on the button, but this page has the same problems as I mentioned above. It also does not have the background colours on the two main boxes. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

In both proposals, I don't like the green background behind 'knowledge groups' with the blue boarders. Also check this out! --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ps. couldn't stay away, kept coming back to see what was going on :P

Ehehe, when it says "and final design". was that really the final design, because this might have just been a waste.... and I can fix that. Oh, and in that link. the second design was the best. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, change is good.

• Love the search bar
• Love the blue (I have a blue fetish, like my userpage)
• Love the borders
• Not so fond of the green on the knowledge groups. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. :D -- RyanCross (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, if the 'Selected Article' rotation is ready, you could actually substitute it for our old main page now. There don't seem to be any coding problems. We could even match the colours of the header on RC with your new design. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I saw Croel set it up earlier. It's violin this week. There's just one problem, that I think can be fixed pretty easily. The 'Knowledge groups' template is actually my sandbox 3. Should I make the changes from sandbox and move it over to Main Page/Knowledge groups, then replce sandbox 3 with the original template now? -- RyanCross (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't even need to keep the original template. If you want, I can delete the original main page subsections and you simply move yours in. It'll be a nice surprise for anyone who's currently asleep and can be reverted and restored easily if something doesn't work. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm? I don't really understand what your planning to do... can you explain more? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) "Should I make the changes from sandbox and move it over to Main Page/Knowledge groups, then replce sandbox 3 with the original template now?" What I understood from this was that you wanted to move sandbox3 to the mainpage and then move the "original template" (i.e. the one present on the main page atm) to your sandbox. Did I misunderstand? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's what I meant. Go ahead, do your worst. :P -- RyanCross (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

/me smiles. I love the new Main Page ;) -- America ^†alk 17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For something like the main look of the site, you would think a discussion would be a little more than three hours between two people.

• The header does not work properly in IE7. The entire text is pushed hard left leaving a huge blank gap in the center of it.
• The rounded corners do not work in both IE7 and Safari.
• The box borders are so faint they do not even show up on my screen (laptop) unless looked at from extreme angles.
• Personally the overall coloring is so bland as to be nearly non-existent.
• The page is 3x the size of the old one..

The last redesign (Main Page/Test 1) went through testing and discussion (Talk:Main Page/Test 1) for over a month before the drastic changes were applied to the main page with multiple users talking part in the discussion. While these changes are not as drastic, a full discussion should take place before replacing the main page. -- Creol(talk) 02:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, Croel, I think I agree that it was a bit drastic to change the main page right away without a full discussion. Okay, I agree with you, but how should we do this. Move the current main page design to Main Page/Test 2 and restore the old version, and then start discussing the design fully there? -- RyanCross (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page/Test 1 was created to work out changes to the Main Page before they are applied. There is no reason to create a new page for this as keeping all the changes in one place makes tracing it all easier. Archiving the talk page to separate the discussions for each main revision would probably be a good idea though. -- Creol(talk) 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the archiving. What's next Creol? Do we try to fix the issues you mentioned on the main page itself, or do we move to Main Page/Test 1? -- RyanCross (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please revert the Main Page back to pre-redesign until we have strong agreement here please? Changing the Main Page is a big deal and I have a few issues with the current design that I'd like to raise (eg. I think Image:Wbar_purple.jpg is tacky in this context). Can someone revert please? —Giggy 10:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Creol(talk) 12:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page has been reverted to before the new design was used. The new design has been moved to the test page so it can be fully discussed. -- Creol(talk) 12:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There's too much purple on the test page! It's like viewing it underwater (or grape juice?). — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Me no like the icon for Wikipedia in other languages... mc8 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't like the blue, personally, but looks great. The old page is really bland. --Terryblack (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The new colour scheme is much better. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Random question. Why is the icon beside of religions a flower? LaraLove|Talk 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Okay, alternative designs at User:LaraLove/Sandbox (gray version) and User:LaraLove/Sandbox 4 (blue version). LaraLove|Talk 07:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I like both Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. Design-wise I think that Proposal 2 would work better, but with some elements added from Proposal 3. I think the arrangement of the Sister Projects section is better in Proposal 3, especially the note about the Wikimedia Foundation. Also, I like most of the icons in the Knowledge Groups section of Proposal 2 better. I do agree with LaraLove that the flower icon next to the religions and beliefs section of Proposal 2 makes little sense. Paxsimius (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject collaboration..

Heyas all, for Wikiproject collaboration we have this list to work on; It would however be useful to add some classification to the list (like stub, normal article, GA, VGA). Can we perhaps also regroup those that need more work separately? - Evolution is on there, it is a VGA; Slavery is on there too, it is currenrtly a stub; both are bold, which mean they are more important.

Ideas? --Eptalon (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is the link to the Wikiproject Collaboration ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 12:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say give each member of WP:C 5 bold-listed articles to work on. No matter if they're stubs or VGAs, more information is never unneeded. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we get as broad as possible (on subject focus). We then list all candidate articles on the project page, and then hope for the best? (Note: so far neither state nor slavery have drawn much attention, both are listed on the project page. Are we perhaps lising the wrong articles?)--Eptalon (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put 19 people and 26 other articles that are in bad need of being extended on the Wikiproject talk page; they can be found here--Eptalon (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors needed...

I don't know where to draw them from, but we would really appreciate new editors who are (experts) in at least one of the following:

• Philiosophy (look at causality to know what I mean)
• Religion/Theology (our Islam-related articles are pathetic at best; we do also not have good ones for early christian movements and splittings; for Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto and the others I know too little, so I cannot even tell, but I guess the situation is mostly the same).

I cannot draw on new editors (esp. not in these fields), so if anyone know where to post this cry for help, please do. --Eptalon (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What about "en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion"? You might also try posting messages on the talk pages of relevant articles at English Wikipedia. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have posted there... But how likely is it we get people who know about Islam from EnWP? --Eptalon (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There must be a few editors with a good working knowledge of Islam, as "Islam" over at English Wikipedia is a featured article. Try posting a message at "en:Talk:Islam" and "en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 16:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Our worst articles form Philosophy, and from Religion?

Hello again; what are say the 5 worst (that is: they need the most work to get to something understandable) articles, which very largely relate to either Philosophy (and are in Category Philosophy, or a subcat), or Religion (similar rule: Category:Religion, or a subcat)? - I think it would be easier to find people if we could point them to specific articles to improve. Ideas?--Eptalon (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say are worse in these categories are not stubs, they are ones that really need cleanup and simplification. Many of these are better-off just be shortened to a stub-sentence. For example, I think being is better than Causality. I think long and complex are worse than simple and basic stubs. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see The Religion-related worklist and the Philosophy-related worklist and complete them as you see fit.--Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made my changes on the Philosophy-related worklist - let me know what you think. I'm glad someone else is doing this - it will give me the push to start working on simplifying philosophy articles. Staeiou (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration with EnWP to make our articles better

Hello all; after posting to the en Wikiproject Religion; Wikiproject and en Wikiproject Philosophy - user User:John Carter (from en Wikiproject Christianity) proposed to help us. He said he will notify the different Religion-related wikiprojects on en, so that they can compile a list of articles they consider top-priority. Editors from the respective Wikiproject will then see that the articles they nominated are good enough here in Simple Wikipedia (this will happen in co-operation with the editors here); that way we should get more editors and more articles.

The list of the religion-related articles is being compiled at en:User:John Carter/Simple English wikipedia; the list of religion-related articles we think need help are here.

As to Philosphy, Wikiproject Philosophy is eager to help; but they too need a listing of articles to work on. I have started a page at User:Eptalon/Philosophy-related_worklist; I think we should wait until the list contains 5-10 entries (ideally from a broad range of subjects). (The message is on my talk page) If you are a named user, don't be afraid to change the lists that are here on simple. --Eptalon (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

PVGA help!!

Hello all, Anna Kournikova is sitting at WP:PVGA desperate for more support. If there's something more to be done to the article, please let me know, or else vote for it! Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please go to the talk page to discuss an issue with the current "pass" mark for VGAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Order of Interwiki Links

Would it be worth, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to do, to differ our order of interwiki links so that English is always at the top, or differentiated in some way, for ease of transition between En-WP and Simple? mc8 16:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In general most wiki's go alpha order by the language name and not the two letter code. Atleast this is how en-wiki does it and thats the closest wiki to us obviously. It also makes finding the language you want that much easier. -Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But sometimes on enwiki, you see simplewiki at the top (notably on the Main Page). Let's face it, if you read an article here, almost all of the time, the next language you will visit will be enwiki, for more info. I think it is a good idea. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's like anything else on wiki, no one has noticed the error and corrected it, though the main page one is probably on purpose to attract users to go to Simple from regular english for ESL types etc. And for the most part I would say most people on english wikipedia don't even care about the interwiki links. I didn't even notice for the first couple years that I edited wiki that the links were even listed on the side like that. Yes I probably would most like go from here to english wiki. That being said you can't really make assumptions and english speakers will more than likely see the word english jump out at them from a list of other languages. Atleast that's my opinion. I am neither for or against it. But I am big on putting things in order so alpabetical is probably my leaning. -Djsasso (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a really good idea to put English on the top when creating new articles or when editing existing articles, but there's no need to edit the article only to move the link. I use interwiki links all the time and I much prefer English be at the top. --Andrew from NC (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always done it alphabetically. I feel that putting English at top indicates a superiority and an inferiority complex. Cassandra 03:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Definately alphabetically. Its not so hard to find. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 08:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be worth having some kind of symbol, like the FA star? mc8 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do something like what is done at en:wikt. They have a "in other projects" section above the interwiki which links to Wikipedia. See here for an example of how this looks. For now, though, I think we should definitely keep the iw links in the order they are now. I could be willing to add this feature, though. I believe it's been discussed on en:wiki to do the same thing with a special section linking to us. · Tygrrr... 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Late to the convo, sorry. Considering simple is designed primarily for those who have English as a second language, I wouldn't assume that en is the first place they would go from here. For the idea of adding the FA star to highlight en on the list, the FA star is used beside any given language to note that the article is featured in that language. And regarding the "in other projects", that's a cross reference from the dictionary to the encyclopedia. Simple is considered another language, not another project. I agree with others that English is not hard to find on the list. LaraLove|Talk 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub placement

Hello. It says that {{stub}} should be placed at the bottom of the appropriate articles. But where exactly is the bottom? Is it below a (possible) template and right above the categories (Example: Detroit, Michigan)? Or should it be above the template above the categoriess (Example: Antananarivo)? -- RyanCross (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should go below the template/navbox. —Giggy 12:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out yourself both placements can be found. I personally (this is no rule tohugh) place it at the end of the text. This is to say the second template (above any navigation templates at the bottom of the page). --Eptalon (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it in alphabetical with the categories (assuming the stub were to add cats) or at the end between cats and interwiki. The second way being the supposed proper way on en-wiki, though millions of variations exist. As long as its not amoungst actual article content I am usually happy. -Djsasso (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

{{stub}} does not generate a category. It should not go in between the categories and interwiki. It should placed in one of 2 places:

1. before the navbox

end of article

{{stub}}
{{navbox}}

[[Category:Category title]]

[[en:English article]]

2. after the navbox

end of article

{{navbox}}
{{stub}}

[[Category:Category title]]

[[en:English article]]

Personally, I place stub before the navbox and feel that that way is preferable. If there is no navbox, then the solution is simple: {{stub}} is placed after the end of the article, before the categories. · Tygrrr... 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It might not generate a category at this point in time but it is very likely that it will eventually. So I think it should be after the categories. You have to plan for the future not react for the current. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To Djsasso: I wouldn't expect you to know this, because I don't believe you were here when we had the discussion(s) about {{stub}}, but it used to generate a category. We decided it was entirely unnecessary for it to do so since it is just as efficient to look at "What links here". Technically, it would be a step backwards rather than forwards to re-add the category. I don't see us re-adding the automatic categorization to the template anytime soon, as I can't anticipate a strong enough argument for needing it. I'm sure you could find the discussions in the archives (if you have the desire to). · Tygrrr... 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) - Completely agreed, Tygrrr. I think that large (particularly when there are more than one) templates are distracting and can (when above the stub tag) hide {{tl|stub]] from view. I think your first one is right. -- AmericanEagle (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Eptalon and Tygrrr - at the end of text, before navboxs. This is especially the case with 100% width navboxes as the stub tends to get lost otherwise (100% and infoboxes.. you never see the stub). For narrower/smaller navboxes, I do tend to put it after the navbox. For me, the main deciding point on placement is if it can easily be seen at the end of the text. This is more of a problem on IE browsers due to placement issues and the {{stub}} may sometimes need to be placed above sister project links as well or it get buried after a huge empty space at the bottom of an infobox, two pictures, {{wikiquote}} and {{commons}}. -- Creol(talk) 05:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates again...

As you can see here, they {{convert}} template (or another related template) is messed up. It keeps saying (and on many other templates and infoboxes) "Expression error: Unexpected round operator." I'm not that great with template code, so does anyone what's wrong with these templates? Thanks -- AmericanEagle (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Convert template was working fine. The two NFL templates were asking it to do things it does not do and they both got screwed up answers because of this. Convert does not do weight nor does it do ft in -> m conversion (ft->m yes, ft in->m no). The {{lb to kg}} and {{height}} templates are needed for these conversions. Both {{infobox NFLactive}} and {{Infobox NFL PlayerCoach}} have been corrected. -- Creol(talk) 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You always seem to know how to fix things. Thanks -- AmericanEagle (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could transfer the mega w:Template:Convert over here from English Wikipedia... — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar

Is there a way for individual users to change the sidebar? I know admins can change Mediawiki:sidebar to change the sidebar for everyone, but can an individual user use their monobook.js page to add links that they commonly use to their own sidebar? --Andrew from NC (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. --  Da Punk '95  talk  09:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what sort of additions do you have in mind?--TBC 11:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think there is a way although I don't know it personally.--  † ChristianMan16  17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but why is "getting around" and so on lowercase? -- American Eagle (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I found a script on en.wp here. I haven't looked at the javascript enough to know whether it can be used here, but I'm betting it can. To answer TBCs question, I wanted to add links to pages that I have found myself using a good bit lately, like the Administrators Noticeboard, categories I'm working on, and so forth. It would also be nice to have the talk pages of active users over on the side, so I don't have to type them in if I need them. --Andrew from NC (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've figured it out

In case anyone is interested, here's how you add links to the sidebar:

1: Go to your monobook.js page.

2: Copy and paste the following code:

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jsimlo/shortcuts.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
 
function shortcutsInit ()
{ 
  shortcutsAddLink ('Admin Noticeboard', 'WP:AN');
}

3: Customize it to suit your needs. For every new link you want, add a line that says:

shortcutsAddLink ('name', 'link');

Change name to what you want to appear in your sidebar and link to the wikilink of the page in question.

4: Clear your browser's cache.

The links will appear at the bottom of the sidebar. It took a minute or two for them to appear on my computer so there might be a bit of lag time. See this page on en.wiki if you have trouble or if you want to create multiple portlets. --Andrew from NC (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Jack Hyles is listed in Category:People from Indiana under the number 2. Is there a way to fix that? --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Heres the fix It was an extra | :) ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 10:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the second time the {{BD}} template has messed me up today! --Andrew from NC (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I keep forgetting to use it, User:The Rambling Man keeps reminding me :) ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 11:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Collaboration

Wikiproject Collaboration now has a few members and is growing nicely. We would like to move it to the wikipedia namespace. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Collaboration any objections? any comments? any new members? :) ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need alot more members before you should start thinking about moving the project to main wikipedia space.--  † ChristianMan16  17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps moving it to the namespace might help? ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we need more people here, period. From that list, I recognize the admins; the uses who have not joined, defined as regular contributors, are Creol, The Rambling Man, JurgenG, RyanCross, ChristmnMan16, Da Punk '95, Andrew from NC, and me (I apologize if I've missed yoy). Eight people, with six joined. Would it really get super active even if everyone joined? Cassandra 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The project sounds like a good idea in theory, but I have doubts if it'll work in practice. I have a feeling that it will fall apart like WP:AID did on the English Wikipedia.--TBC 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Character table

Why does the handy character table that appears under the edit summary field when you edit an article in English Wikipedia not appear in Simple Wikipedia? It's a bit of a pain not having it when you need to insert symbols into articles. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 23:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree...can we add that?--  † ChristianMan16  02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was actually added last September, it is just turned off by default. To turn it on, add the following line to your .css page:

#editpage-specialchars {display:block}

-- Creol(talk) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you explain how I access my .css page? Also, why don't we turn the character table on by default? — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Scratch the first question – by looking at English Wikipedia I figured out that one needs to create a subpage called "User:Your username/monobook.css". — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the 30,000th article?

Quite a milestone you reached. Congrats. --202.169.76.240 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

According the the announcements, "30,000 Pounds of Bananas" was the 30K article. -- Creol(talk) 03:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ironic. --Andrew from NC (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the article especially :P. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 08:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You did that on purpose? Did you actually notice it before they announced? Prime Contributer (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound semantics-nazi-ish, but it's either coincidental or intentional (as per Arial's comments) and certainly not ironic. Irony implies something other than the literal intent, like if "30,000th article" referred to 30,000 articles (using article's second dictionary sense) of fruit. :) --TBC 13:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

The vote deadlines for Powderfinger and Baseball uniform have passed; would someone uninvolved be kind enough to close and promote (assuming they pass; I think they do) please?

Also, any more comments/votes on any other article listed there would be appreciated by all! Cheers! —Giggy 06:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Majorly. —Giggy 06:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ImportScript

Does the staple of EN-WP scripts,

importScript('User:Hersfold/automod.js');

work on Simple? mC⁸ 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the script or the function "importscript"? If it is the function, it works here (I added it). Chenzw  Talk  12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As in, if I type that, will I be able to transclude User:Hersfold/automod.js into my monobook? mc8 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Whether the script works here is another question, though. Chenzw  Talk  13:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Quickly Now!

NASA is going to its final day at WP:PGA with only one vote. Please quickly give any comments now, lack of them should never be the reason it is not promoted. There are also a few other there that would like comments. So if you have the time, it could use some attention. Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, something that might not get enough !votes may mean others think it's not GA material. I didn't vote because I couldn't decide weather to oppose or support, and maybe that's how others think. So not enough votes after a week does mean it doesn't get promoted. -- RyanCross (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on it. Cassandra 22:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented. It's a great start to an article, but there need to be better flow and more content. --TBC 13:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a great candidate. But 4 oppose votes of 5 total show that it is not ready yet. --Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

To be completely honest I don't think we need a Simple English Wiki. It takes time away from editors that would be expanding and helping the English Wiki. Has anyone ever used a dictionary before? If someone is new to the English language, they look things up, ask questions. It seems like a waste of time to struggle to put 2 million articles into simple english, when the same editors could be contributing to the regular Wiki. 68.162.198.82 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That's wonderful logic. I guess we don't need the French Wiki, they can just learn English. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We can toss out Scottish wiki also. Thats just English with odd spelling and a few new words. Since we don't need a British for all their funny spellings, there is no reason the Scots needs one. -- Creol(talk) 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And we don't need Wiktionary, they can just go buy their own dictionary...

This might be a troll. Is CU needed? Sebb ^Talk 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The current comment does not warrant a checkuser, sorry. --Eptalon (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously that wasn't me lol, but I just feel like its taking too much attention away from the reg English wiki. 68.162.198.82 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind editing at either here or en.wiki is optional. Editors can choose where they want to edit. Sebb ^Talk 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also the french thing is different since its a different language. We're talking about the same language here. 68.162.198.82 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The en.wiki is useless for those with a poor understanding of the language. The fr.wiki should go, simply because they can just learn English if they want to learn about stuff through the Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

About fr.wiki, the French Simple is dying just before the 5,000 entries mark... unless it revives after school holidays. ONaNcle (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It serves a different purpose. This wiki may be used by people who are learning English, are young children, or are learning impaired. The regular e.wp may be too hard for them to read. Sebb ^Talk 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're using up too much time here 68.162.198.82, pop back to en-wiki, I'm sure they're missing you already... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia is like a refreshing breath of air compared to the damned and constant infighting over at our big brother. Tenuous editing, edit warring, 3RR; massive sockpuppetry; hundreds of blocks issued and pages deleted, AFD discsussions opened; thousands of kilobytes of text on AN and ANI and RFAR; here, nothing. A pure experience, focusing on what Wikipedis is really about – the improvement of articles. Cassandra 17:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd second Cassandra's take on this Wikipedia. It's a good example of pleasant collaboration. Sure there are the odd fallings-out but in general in this place, we all look after each other and make it a better place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. And by the way, that is User:Grk1011 from Wikiproject Christianity. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On that note - I'd like to help out but I'm worried I'll get the tone of my edits wrong - can anyone recommend a handy cribsheet? (apologies if this is the wrong place to ask this). --Allemandtando (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 22:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One other thing, EN Wikipedia is already overflowing, and choked up. Taking some attention away from there does them a little good, reduces the work load. Not to mention them having about 5 edits per second! That's about 60 times more popular than here. Time for Wikimedia Foundation to start doing something new anyway. Minor Contributer (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback proposal

Hello. After some discussion with a few other users, I have written up User:Giggy/Rollback proposal. Basically, I propose that the rollback feature be implemented here. Those active on the English Wikipedia will recall its implementation there, and thus be aware of en:Wikipedia:Rollback feature; the proposal I've written up is pretty similar to that.

I invite the community to comment on this proposal. —Giggy 09:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Popups can be very slow in reverting, especially when the article is very long (due to form data). Also, some user's browsers cannot use popups (like Razor), so, it will be a good idea. Chenzw  Talk  10:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the last discussion around January, 2008, it was brought up it was too early and that we should wait a few months. Well, 6 and a half months have past, and I think rollback would be good to be of use here on simple now. I thought rollback would be good here, so I guess I spoke to Giggy and Chenzw about it, and I would like rollback implemented. But a community discussion should take place first. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with it being implemented. I use it at the en.wiki and its very good. ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the current need for it? I don't currently see the volume of edits that would require rollback. Having said that, I have no strong objection to it being implemented. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Gwib once beat me to vandalism since he was able to rollback and I could only undo, and rollback covers all edits by that user/IP address, while you have to manually click on the last good revsision to handle vandalism spread over many diffs. Cassandra 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The current need is because someone reverted faster than you? Reverting vandalism is not a race. This is hardly a reason to need the developers time. Personally, I rarely use rollback (unless using a bot-rollback which is more because of the bot portion and not the rollback portion) as I already have to check each edit anyway and by that time I am already back at the first edit I need to revert to. -- Creol(talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, while handy and I wouldn't mind having it. There isn't really a need to have it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it take that much time? I thought that, since it was already established on en wiki, that it would be relatively easy and painless to implement. Anyway, it really isn't that big of a deal, vandalism is far less frequent than it is on the English Wikipedia. Cassandra 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

<--- But what's bad about having non-admin rollback enabled. All I see is that it helps us in vandalism fighting, I see nothing bad about enabling it. It actually improves our wikipedia in that area, IMO. Even if we don't have a need for rollback, we can just implement it anyway. There's no cost. It will surely help our vandal fighters, especially for large amounts of vandalism. Sure, reverting vandalism is not a race, but let's say this IP vandalizes an article very severely; maybe replacing it with something very inappropriate, especially for kids. What if someone comes to read that article that was just vandalized and he sees all that inappropriate stuff, and he never comes to wikipedia again. We can decrease the chances of that happening if experienced non-admins had the rollback tool. What if, everyone is offline, and all these vandals appear on wikipedia and vandalize everything they see. And a non-admin goes online, and sees many many pages vandalized. By the way, this happened before, and I had to clean everything up. It would take a long time reverting, but with rollback, you can revert quicker, not to mention you can revert all edits by a single user. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if "All these vandals appear" and start this fiasco you speak of, and you are trying to use rollback to stop them, then you are likely screwed. Rollback vs multiple vandals is less than useless. It only takes two vandals to make it useless. Heck, one vandals and one person trying to help fix makes the rollback useless. You mention (that you dont mention) reverting all edits by a single users but this is not actually how rollback works. Since it only reverts back the last person, any vandal edits before that are untouched. It does not revert all his edits, only his most recent ones. If you walked in to the aftermath of a vandal storm, you still would have to check each article by hand to make certain you didnt just revert 1/2 the things he added. Rollback with these types of edits causes more problems because it lets you feel overconfident that one click solved the problem and you are less likely to actually look at the problem to see if you finished the job. The history of each article should be checked prior to reverting in any manner. If you are already looking at the history, rollback serves little to no purpose at all as you should already be looking at the version you need to revert back to. Why go back and then hit the rollback button rather than just re-saving the very page you are on to that position? (or with popups, check all diff until you get the good version and then hit the revert button) -- Creol(talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback enables Huggle, an extremely fast reversion tool. Sebb ^Talk 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We have no need for Huggle (currently). If you use Huggle over here, you could end up wasting 30+ minutes with nothing (really!). Anyway, without rollback, you still can use Huggle by editing the project configuration page over here. Chenzw  Talk  12:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are on Macs (or non Windows-based systems) and cannot use Huggle. Thus I believe Rollback is a good idea. Bstone (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

use of language

This is on the main page:

"Simple doesn't mean little. Writing in Simple English doesn't mean that the readers want the information simple, the words are simple. Articles don't have to be short to be simple, expand the articles, and make it simple, but with a lot of information."

I would also use the word "short" (is clearer). And (I don't know how on this page), but I would change "expand the articles" to "make the articles bigger/longer".

Hmmm, no, the words aren't all short. Some are big words, but still simple. Also, could you sign your talk edits with this: ~~~~ ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 15:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I see there's a little dispute in what I have added, I think I'll try to rephrase it, if I still can... Minor Contributer (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PGA SPL

Hi, the SPL article is up for voting for GA. Could anyone interested take a look and vote? Much obliged.

• Link to article (Scottish Premier League)
• Link to voting (PGA)

Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ ^{(talk) (wikiproject collaboration)} 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PVGA help!!

Hello everyone. Jessica Alba is at WP:PVGA with only a day to go under our current PVGA guidelines. She has two supports and no opposes but needs at least three more supports before promotion can take place. Please head there and offer an opinion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 6 votes needed for VGA; this makes 4 more votes... --Eptalon (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because it can have three more supports and one person opposes it, as you well know, and it'll meet the criteria. Anyway, we're now at three supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And note to Eptalon, I said three more supports, not three more votes. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So, to the rest of the interested community, please please PLEASE head to WP:PVGA and express your opinion on Jessica Alba! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just gave my Support. Three more votes needed. -- American Eagle (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And then there were flames....

Yes, I am back for those of you who still remember me :) I have lived out my life over at Yahoo Answers and have gotten extremely bored with that site, so I have come back here to work on the Simple English Wikipedia again. Hope I didn't miss anything too exciting :) Cheers, Razorflame 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!! I'm so glad you decided that way. I felt kind of bad, having you nominate me and then disappear. Forget you? Never. Welcome back, Razor! Sincerely yours, -- American Eagle (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

After becoming the third most active user on Yahoo Answers, I figured that I should become the most active user on this site again, since it has been so long since I have edited this site :) Cheers, Razorflame 01:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back. --TBC 12:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You came back, too :) Cheers, Razorflame 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously!

What the hell have you guys been doing while I've been gone?!? Two users who I respected, trusted, and liked, as well as being extremely helpful members of this Wikipedia have gone and retired while I was gone for a few weeks. Seriously?!? What the hell have you guys been doing to treat people this badly? Have things really gotten this much worse since I have been gone? You guys need to check yourselfs over again, because the last time I checked, we are wanting to attract and keep editors, not attract and repel editors. Cheers, Razorflame 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two? I know that The Rambling Man is retired, but who was the other? TRM was a bit upset over the voting going on at Jessica Alba. We hopefully got a new regular user, KyleMcInnes (talk · contribs), of which Ryan and I had to try very hard to recruit, since his IP was rangeblocked and he couldn't make an account (I suggested we could make it, while Ryan was the one that did it). Cassandra 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, where's this coming from? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cassandra, I've picked that up over the messages that he left over at the PVGA page as well as on his own talk page and Creol's talk page. The other user who left I cannot tell you because of personal reasons. Sorry! Cheers, Razorflame 01:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This post is seriously out of line. -  EchoBravo  contribs  18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice you being gone. Your name is always on the Recent Changes page everytime I enter this place. One other thing, the other user that has left specifically asked not to be mentioned. Minor Contributer (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple English Wiki = Summary?

I understand that to summarize is not your intent, but I find that when reading English Wiki, any article that stretches more than about 6-8 screen's worth on my 22" 16:10 (just providing for comparison and understanding), especially when the topic is something I only learned about recently, e.g. Bretton Woods System, I tend to look for the Simple English version. I'm just curious if any of you have done similar; English Wikipedia tends to get effectively too much attention on some articles, leading to ridiculously convoluted wrecks. 66.215.20.28 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the bad ideas people have about Simple English wikipedia is that the Simple refers to Wikipedia, and not to English. But it really refers to English. This means that the language is simple, the content need not be; look at Evolution (one of our very best articles, at the moment) to know what I mean. Of course the idea is to start out short, and then extend as needed/interest. What I often find with EnWP (and others too) is that they tend to focus so much on hard-to-understand details that are only confusing the newcomer who wants to get a basic picture of the facts. The idea that Simple English articles are short can be disproved quite easily; look at World History, or Abiogenesis (both are works in progress of mine, World history has progressed much further though). And yes, you are welcome to help. :) --Eptalon (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

{{welcome}}

Just checking - Is it that {{welcome}} a) doesn't work on simple or b) does work and is currently broken in some way? I just tried to use it and it's misformed. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just that you are not using it correctly. To use this template correctly, you must put a subst: before the welcome like this:

{{subst:welcome}}

That way, you are telling Wikipedia that you want to have what is in the template to be on the page you put it on, and therefore, it works :)

Hope this helps :) Razorflame 20:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Romania GA

Alright guys! I have been working on this article already for nearly 10 hours or so (counting the 5 or so hours that I spent a few weeks ago getting it ready), and there is still a whole bunch that needs to be done to make it a GA, as well as a potential VGA:

1. I will continue working on the history section well into the night, and I should have it completed within about 10 or so more hours. Please see Talk:Romania for the current discussion about this point because I am not sure if I am going into too much detail.
2. * There are numerous fact templates spread throughout the article that need to have references gotten for them. I would appreciate it if somneone would find references for these points and insert them into the article.
3. * Creol: Can you fix the missing required operand erros that I am getting in the Climate section of the Geography section of Romania for me please? Thanks!

   Done: the convert template needed what to convert to (C->F) -- Creol(talk) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

4. * History of Romania needs to be simplified. If anyone is good with simplification, I would appreciate it if you would go into this part of the article History of Romania and simplify it for me as I already have quite enough on my plate as it is.
5. * After I and some other people finish preparing and adding stuff to the article, I need a second opinion complete proofread and copyedit. The reason why I am asking for this is so that I can get a second opinion to see if the sentences are short enough or not.

That should be everything that needs to be added to this article for now. I will need help with the things that are currently marked with a star (*) (numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5). There are still quite a few additions that I need to make to this article that I will be making right now, so could you use the talk page to discuss this please while I finish doing the history section?

Thanks for reading this long post, Razorflame 04:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IRC channels

As I have now got IRC actually working, I have noticed that several users use IRC frequently, although Simple Wikipedia's dedicated IRC channel is often desolate, with exactly the same users in it as several months ago, many of which are idle. IRC could, if used, be powerful to aid such things as Kennedy's Wikiproject Collaboration, or to discuss VIP issues in real time. It could be used for such things as discussion for WP:AN; for instance the current debate about an IP that is currently causing more harm than good, yet still acting in good faith? It can reduce edit conflicts on such noticeboards, and throwaway comments seen too farfetched to be put on the slightly more formal wiki can be discussed in more detail on IRC — instead of being like a series of e-mails, IRC allows realtime conversations, which, although a small wiki does not require urgency as much as, say vandalism on EN's Main Page, cannot be a bad thing.
For reference: #wikipedia-simple — irc.freenode.net

Microchip 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the channel isn't well used. Many people do sit on the anti-vandalism channel though. Perhaps they could be recruited in. I do think that the channel should be advertised more to allow more to know about it and use it. Majorly ^talk 23:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post a topic on this. Yes, I agree completely that it may be useful. SwirlBoy39 15:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been in the Simple IRC channel on freenode for 4+ months now. Most of the time it's pretty dormant but there has been some more activity in recent weeks. We don't have an active channel sysop but that seems to be a minor issue at this point. Bstone (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Goal to achieve: 100,000 articles in 2008

We must have a goal. simple english wikipedia must have at least 100,000 articles to the end of year. then promote the site, and move your hands.

Why is our goal quantity? Is it sensible to rush to 100,000 articles if they are poorly written low quality articles. Why 100,000? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how many are there at the moment. Some of the statistics are going a bit crazy on my computer (see above). Can someone tell me what they see? - tholly ^--Turnip-- 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) We are at 33.316 articles; usually, we get about 1.000 new articles a month. --Eptalon (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So getting 100,000 articles is probably impossible. Majorly ^talk 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We currently have 14 GAs and 17 VGAs; Suppose we can get to grips with the voting process (avoiding last minute change requests), what about doubling that number? - Thats 31 better articles at the moment; can we get to 50, by the end of this year? - If not 50, 40 total? --Eptalon (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a worthwhile goal. LaraLove|Talk 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting to 100000 articles can be done in a few days... (There are some 36000 Municipalities in France and some 14000 in Germany... so that would get Simple to 85000+ pages) but do we need 65000 more stubs for now? And before I get any static about creating those 500+ municipalities from Belgium, that was an experiment and now I'm trying to improve one of them at a time. JurgenG (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC) (now off to ride my bike, weather is way too nice to be behind the keyboard).

The main problem we have is that we are relatively few people, between 10 and 40 active editors, depending on when you look and who you ask. With my current workload I cannot edit any more than I do, at the moment. And, I agree with you; fewer articles of a higher quality are better than many stubs. Strength does not lie in number (of articles), this time.--Eptalon (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the mistake that en.wikipedia made - and they now have what amounts to information ghettos - where poorly written and in many cases misleading articles are left untouched because there isn't the manpower or will to do anything with them. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eptalon's GA/VGA target is much better. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a longer term goal of 100,000 by the end of 2010 is a good idea. In the mean time, we should work on current VGAs, etc. Bstone (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

True, we want want quality, not quantity. You can easily create 70, 000 stub articles about movies, and video games. Minor Contributer (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My GA push attempts:

I would like it if some people could help me improve the following articles:

1. EarthBound
2. Pikmin (series)
3. Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure
4. Rhythm Tengoku
5. Metroid II: Return of Samus
6. M*A*S*H (TV series)

Any help that can be given would be great. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can do some copyediting here and there. I'll be glad to help. :) -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Alba at WP:PVGA

Hello. I have relisted Alba at WP:PVGA. Please make your constructive and helpful comments as soon as possible so that I can go to voting in two weeks without fear of new fundamental issues and opposers arriving on the last day of the voting. Thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop in!

If someone could pp into ##SB39 on Freenode I'd greatly appreciate it. I would like to speak about some Simple related things. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• sees IRC topic above and wonders what is wrong with #wikipedia-simple* (that's mc8 by the way)

• • Second. -- Total Spastic (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have spoken. :P SwirlBoy39 19:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A new project

I've created a new project in my userspace. Everyone is more than welcome to participate. Synergy (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ionas68224

I just nabbed and had another en.wikipedia admin block another sockpuppet of Ionas68224. He has the same username on En. The user name was Swusr and the block log is here. I pwned him on IRC. SwirlBoy39 00:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You pwned him? As in? Chenzw  Talk  12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

SwirlBoy39 pretended to be on my side when we were conversing about Creol's behavior. SB revealed my username in public, said he didn't mean to, but after this comment I am suspicious. He was laughing his ass off behind the screen. Majorly and Synergy participated in the conversation too, but I doubt it was a vast conspiracy by everyone. The comment by SwirlBoy above indicates that his comments about being on my side were misleading and meant to troll. It was all just a trick, and I fell for it. --Jonas 67.159.45.233 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, don't tell anyone you're a banned user, and you'll be fine. Or, perhaps, sit out your ban, and come back and be a productive editor. Your choice. Majorly ^talk 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My involvement was to specifically inform and prohibit such actions as: 1) requesting desysop when its not needed or warranted; 2) threatening to block a crat when theres no evidence, no warnings and with no clear rationale; and 3) asking others to participate when you have yet to make a case. I'd prefer you did not mention my name when it comes to such haphazard situations. Regards Synergy 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has any concerns over the actions of other users, there is a clear way of resolving them:

1. Discuss the issue with the user in question. Leave a polite message on their talk page outlining your concerns and see if they take them on board.
2. If that doesn't work, ask the rest of the community. If the discussion got big enough on the talk page, they're probably already there. If not, bring it here to Simple Talk. We can then make a decision as to what action to be taken as a community.
3. If you don't think a community discussion is working, and it's turning into a major issue, take it to a Meta Request for Comments. This allows users from other projects to give an independent view on the situation, and if necessary decide on further action.

Requesting desysopping or blocking of anyone before the late stages of step 2 is a very big move. It sounds very much like the Netoholic incident and I'm guessing that was probably discussed on IRC, but let me point out that before resorting to blocking, I attempted to defuse the situation through his talk page. I only blocked because he was continuing his edit war and incivility with a total refusal to respond to my attempts to start a discussion. This is grounds for short-term blocking of any editor. Desysopping of Netoholic was a community decision after going through all 3 of the above steps. I don't know what happened on IRC, but it's always better to discuss things in the open and get them sorted quickly, before they turn into something nasty. I'm sure all the bureaucrats here are capable of responding to criticism adequately, and attempting to resolve the issue effectively. Creol is the first to admit that he is blunt, but I am certain he would respond to any discussions about his "behaviour" adequately and make reasonable attempts to avoid further conflict. If there is anything to discuss, I'm sure it can be resolved without secret meetings about desysoppings and blockings. There are many more steps we can take to resolve a dispute before that point is reached. Archer7 - talk 20:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was done in secret (as far as I know). Swirlboy and jonas were discussing what to do about Creol. And I told them to do nothing (but if they were concerned, they should just talk it over with Creol instead). I'm unaware of the Netoholic incident, so I won't be able to comment until I can locate it, and read it. The IRC channel for Simple is open to anyone who wants to enter. It just so happens that me and Majorly were there while this was being talked about (and for the record, both me and Majorly objected to this foolishness). Synergy 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also there. I thought that was a crazy idea. Creol hasn't done anything that would cause a desysopship in anyway. If he did, there's no proof. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't want Creol desysoped. We were just talking about him. SwirlBoy39 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SoxBot

Can we get SoxBot unblocked? It was blocked on EN because thousands of users were using it. We only have about twenty who would use it, so could it be unblocked? Thanks --American Eagle (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just because of the number of users. A Wikimedia developer blocked SoxBot, asking it not to make thousands of edits when people start and stop ediing [1]. Possibly because it used up so many resources. I think we should keep it down until they approve. Cassandra 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Upload image(s) of Aang please

Hello. Could someone upload images of Aang to Wikimedia Common please, particularly images such as this and this from the English Wikipedia? Trust me, I'm horrible with images itself, especially uploading them. I'm currently trying to get the Aang article to WP:GA, and some images would be really helpful for it, but like I said, I'm no good with images. Would like someone to do this for. It will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ryan†Cross (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't upload them. We are completely free, we don't use any fair use. These images are not free and will be deleted if they are uploaded to the Commons. Sadly, this means that articles on fictional characters, movies, etc. will not look pretty with fair use. Cassandra 04:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, can any image that is not fair use on the internet of Aang be uploaded to commons? If so, can someone do so? Thanks, Ryan†Cross (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, none can - all the images of Aang would by nature be nonfree, and this Wikipedia has (rightly?) decided not to use fair use. —Giggy 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, could someone have a look at Template:Infobox football league. There is a problem with the top part:

 [[Template: {{{name}}}|v]] • [[Template talk: {{{name}}}|d]] • [{{fullurl:Template: {{{name}}}|action=edit}} e]  

I'm not sure how to fix that, could someone else have a go? ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem with it not providing enough information to the {{infobox}} template. I fixed both templates. This template now provides the needed information and I told {{Infobox}} to think for itself a little bit if not told exactly what to do. That should prevent other templates from causing the same problem. -- Creol(talk) 09:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

note: actually, quite a few templates that used the infobox template were not working correctly. This was mainly dealing with the name and title attributes not being supplied to it (both are needed). I reset the template to use {{PAGENAME}} as the default for both attributes. This should correct this problem on all the templates. -- Creol(talk) 09:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks Creol! ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 10:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)