Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 74

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.

Move of WP:ST/WP:ANI

Hi there!

I think we should move the to pages with over 5,000 versions to a "versions archive" or something like the sandbox. This would give admins the ability to delete the page and restore it. I wasn't sure if I should simply move the pages to /versions1. Now, only oversights can delete the pages if vandalism appears. And btw: yes, revisions delete will be enable, but no one knows when our devs think it is the time for it. Any thoughts? Barras (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But would it not mess up diff links? Griffinofwales (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it doesn't matter. The diffs wiil still work after the move. Barras (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barras. I'll think about it. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to be honest. We have people that have the ability to hide anything that falls under OS guidelines. Anything else doesn't have to be deleted. ie the typical penis vandalism etc. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sasso above. Shortly we will have the ability to revision delete, so this problem will be solved soon. Also, in the event we don't have local OS available, we can call upon the stewards, since our local policy permits this. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template error

Could someone who understands this template Template:Convert have a look at it because it is now making incorrect conversions. --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesofur knows how it works. I will talk to him. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checking, any specific ones it's doing incorrect? or all?Jamesofur (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking some pages using distance - kilometres into miles and vice versa. --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acres to hectares is not working either. This is starting to cause problems as people try to fix the incorrect data without knowing that it is the template that's broken eg [1] --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- so I broke it again, well sorta It's fixed in the normal sense (the ones you were talking about generally) but we're having the old problems with infoboxes and some other copied en data. After way to long I discovered this is because we really don't have the entire template, we have a very boiled down version of it. This means that alot of the syntax used in copied over infoboxes etc doesn't work and isn't anywhere within the current template (for example there is only kg and lb for weight there is no ton or LT used in the locomotive infoboxes. Sadly this effects ALOT of pages (all locomotive and Lake infoboxes for example) and isn't an issue fixed by editing the infoboxes it's actually a syntax problem on the pages themselves. We are able to do almost everything we want to rewording those pages but we would have to do it everywhere which would take to much time. That said what we need to do is import the entire template from En, which sadly is A BUNCH of templates all used together so it could take some time. PMLinediter is trying it out right now, I'll let you know if it succeeds :). Jamesofur (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to head to bed and it looks like PMLinediter is having some problems either with his computer, the import or both :( (he mentioned earlier importing the doc was crashing his browser). If he isn't able to do it right now that's fine and later today I will be happy to do whatever admins/the community wants. I think the 3 main options are:

a patient admin can help import over the multitude of templates that we need. (I can help show what needs to get imported)
I (or someone else but I'm happy to do it) can copy/paste them over with links back for copyright)
If people are willing to wait a day or two we can get consensus and I can grab the import flag from the stewards for an hour or two and import them myself.

I'm fine with anything, If someone decides to go ahead and import them while I'm gone please do the actual template/convert LAST, it must be deleted completely here before it is re imported because of how we have it currently set up. Importing it all first while we have the semi broken template up is better then importing a template that will break half the site :). Jamesofur (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing, from what I know, the template needn't be deleted; one can import to an existing page. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~40 done; will spend tomorrow morning (UTC) finishing it. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I did...

Importing pages...

   * Template:Convert 1 revision
   * Template:Anchor 1 revision
   * Template:Color 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/+/- 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/BTU 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Ba 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Btu 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/Dual/Loff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAoffDbSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Dual/LoffAonDbSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Dual/rnd 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Eh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GPa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GW.h 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GWh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GeV 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GtTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/GtonTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/J 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/K 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/L 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/L/100 km mpgimp 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LT-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LTf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Latm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LinAoffDbSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSoff2 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSoffF 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSoffT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDorSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffDsSoffT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAoffSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAonDbSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAonDbSoffT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAonDsSoffT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffAonSoffF 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/LoffT 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/LonAoffDbSoffNa 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/LoutAonDbSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MPa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MW.h 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MWh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Mcal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Mdyn 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/Merg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Mm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MtTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/MtonTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/N 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Pa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Ry 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ST 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ST-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/STf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/TW.h 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/TWh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Torr 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.bbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.beerbbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.bsh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.bu 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.drybbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.drygal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.drypt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.dryqt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.gal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.galatm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.oz 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.pt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/U.S.qt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USbbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USbeerbbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USbsh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USbu 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USdrybbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USdrygal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USdrypt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USdryqt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USgal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USgalatm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USoz 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USpt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/USqt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/W.h 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Wh 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/and 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/and/AoffSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/and/AonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/and/frn2 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/and/in 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/atm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/bar 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/by 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cL 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/carat 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cc 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/chain 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cm2 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cm3 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cuft 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cuftnaturalgas 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cuin 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/cuyd 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/dJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/daJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/dbar 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/doc 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/drachm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/dram 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/dunam 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/dyn 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/eV 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/erg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/fathom 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/fourLreck 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/fourmigb 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/foutmreg 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/ft/s 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ftlb-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ftlbf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ftpdl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/furlong 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/g 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/g-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/gf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/gr 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/gr-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/grf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/hJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/hPa 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/hand 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/hph 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impbbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impbsh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impbu 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impgal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impgalatm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impoz 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/imppt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/impqt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/in 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/inHg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/inlb-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/inlbf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/inoz-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/inozf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kBa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kL 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kPa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kW.h 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kWh 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kcal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kdyn 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/keV 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kerg 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/kg-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kgf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/km 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/km/h 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/km2 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/km2 sqmi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/km mi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kn 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/kt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ktTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ktonTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/l 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/latm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/lb 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/lb-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/lbf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/area/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/energy/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/explanation 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/extra 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/facdisp 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/foot note 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/force/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/item 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/length/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/mass/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/row 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowImp 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowUSre 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltab 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltabImp 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltabNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltabUSer 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltname 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowaltnameNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowbr 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowbrNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowbrUSre 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowbraltabUSer 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowbrtop 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowkelvinT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rownonote 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowprimenameNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowprimenametop 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowprimenametopNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowtempT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowtempTs 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowtop 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowtopImp 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowtopNa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowtopUSre 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowuninotetop 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/rowuninotetopwaltab 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/speed/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/temperature/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/torque/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/triple 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/list of units/volume/short list 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/long ton 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ly 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/m2 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/mJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mL 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mPa 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mb 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mbar 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mcal 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mdyn 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/meV 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mg-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mgf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ml 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mm2 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mm3 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mmHg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mpgus 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/mph 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/multi2LoffAonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/multi2LonAonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/nJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/nN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/nm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/nmi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/numdisp 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/numdisp/a 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/numdisp/frac 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/numdisp/frac0 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/numdisp/frac1 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/oilbbl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/out 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/oz 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/oz-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ozf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/ozt 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/pc 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/pdl 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/pround 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/psi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/rd 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Convert/roundT0 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/roundi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/short ton 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/sqft 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/sqin 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/sqmi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/sqnmi 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/sqyd 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/sround 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/st 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/t 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/t-f 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/tTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/tf 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/to 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/to(-) 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/to(-)/AoffSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/to(-)/AonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/to/AoffSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/to/AonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/toe 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/tonTNT 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/tsubo 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/x 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/x/AoffSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/x/AonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/yd 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/°C 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/°F 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/°R 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/± 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/±/AoffSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/±/AonSoff 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/µJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/µN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/µg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/µm 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/Å 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/μJ 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/μN 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/μg 1 revision
   * Template:Convert/μm 1 revision
   * Template:Dablink 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Notice 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Precision/-10 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-11 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-20 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-30 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-40 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-41 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-50 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-51 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-60 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-61 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/-71 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Precision/01 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/1 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/10 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/11 1 revision
   * Template:Precision/20 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Scinote 1 revision
   * Template:Scinote/P1 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.
   * Template:Selfref 1 revision
   * All revisions were previously imported.

Import finished!

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking now to see what we're still missing, It also looks like we have some old infoboxes that I may need to update... /lookinJamesofur (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those probably aren't all of them but they were the ones I was able to find that we were using but didn't have yet :) Jamesofur (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pmlineditor ∞ 11:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPADE

There's a regular English version of this policy, but not a simple one. I think this policy is very important considering that our users don't speak English very well. We should write that project page. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy; it's just a general essay. Either way (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears it already does exist here. The Rambling Man (talk)

PVGA, PGA and WP:DYK

Hey all,

Can I prod you towards the above to give your thoughts on the articles there. We have quite a few that will fail due to lack of input :(

Cheers,

Gob lin 11:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Minimum spanning tree

Needs some gnoming :) Best! NonvocalScream (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some gnoming is done. Barras (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groomed a little, expanded a little; needs some simplifying and red-link-fixing now. --Eptalon (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it has only been a few hours and this article is great! Thank you again. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only help like that in a few very limited fields of knowledge, though. --Eptalon (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7 talk page?

is it being protected from vandalism or something because i wanted to talk to... Seabanks (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say it here then please :) Gob lin 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

New Good and Very Good Articles

Hello,

getting an article to Good or Very good status is a lot of work. I therefore believe it would be good if we could anonunce the promotions of such articles in some way. Congratulations on those involved:

became good articles in September or October

made it to Very Good articles in the same time period; congratulations to all who helped. --Eptalon (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SN. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little help

Howdy folks! An article that was up for deletion, was up for that because of thje style, formatting, and lack of simplification. If your good at gnoming, please try your hand at Moon hoax. Thank you again for your help, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat behaviour...

...is being discussed here. This note is to make sure the entire community are aware of what's been going on recently. Feel free to pop by and add your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Project Partners - an approach to expand important articles

Can I draw people's attention to my new user project Article Project Partners? I feel it could really help expand and create important articles. All are welcome to take part. It is ad-hoc and casual, come and go as you please. ! :-) fr33kman ^talk 09:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Requests

Does en simple wikipedia allow image requests? FirstLTMarcosz (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We currently rely on images from commons; we are a small Wikipedia, and currently do ont have the resources for image checking. --Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 floods gloucestershire

Found it on RC patrol, may be salvageable. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's notable enough. I'll work on it later tonight. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Communes

Hi. I haven't given up on doing the french communes though I agree they should meet some kind of standard. This is why I'm asking here: how long should they be, what kind of information should they include? Thanks, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO: At least 5 sentence, infobox if there exist one, something about the location, perhabs a few numbers (inhabitants). If there are pics, so one would be nice (eg. if the infobox doesn't exist.) Barras (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks :) I won't be starting now though. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proxybot

Hiya gang! Recently, on IRC, a suggestion came up about dealing with open proxies on all Simple English WMF projects at the same time. The creation of a adminbot (proxyblocker) that'd block proxies for all sites at the same time. This came up because on simpleWQ today an open proxy vandal (the same one as here of late) begun an attack there. This proxy had already been blocked here on simpleWP for some time. As such, it might be useful to get some discussion going about the need for such a tool, what it would look like, what it would do and what it would not do. Suggestions so far have ranged from a non-admin bot that dumps a list of proxies to block into AN on the projects (or another page) to a bot with the sysop flag that finds the proxies and deals with them. It was also wondered about if this should be a new bot (EhJJ expressed interest in writing it) or an existing bot (IE: en:User:Slakr's bot) Thoughts? fr33kman ^talk 00:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly a number of options. At the moment, I have a bot (EhJXWVBot) which checks whether an editor (or IP) changing pages on one of the Simple projects is currently blocked on en. If so, it sends a message to ##cvn-simplewikis on freenode. It would be very simple to get the bot to actually take some action. Here is an example post:

82.94.180.240, who recently edited User:J.delanoy (-1207) on simple.wikiquote, 
is currently blocked on the English Wikipedia from 2009-09-13T22:07:55Z until 
2010-08-30T08:14:50Z for: {{blocked proxy}}:  
Diff: http://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?diff=32284&oldid=24350 
Block: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/82.94.180.240

There are a few bots out there that actually detect whether an editor is using an open proxy. None are 100% accurate, but they are usually quite good and would really help diminish attacks by those who are currently circumventing admin blocks. Right now, vandals have the upper hand, because there are so many open proxies out there and blocking them one-by-one manually is a losing battle. EhJJ^TALK 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was talked about before to use slackr's bot once he replied to us about it. But I don't remember when where or how it was talked about. That is my personal preference. -DJSasso (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two things that would be nice and would support both:

1. Slakr's bot which I believe goes through and blocks all known proxies at that time. (has to be run when we want it done)
2. A bot, likely written by EhJJ or someone else. That would read blocks done on any Simple project and then EITHER (if its an admin bot) block them on all Simple projects OR (if it's not an adminbot) edit a list of proxies with a block link on all simple projects where that proxy is not already blocked.

I think they would be separate proposals and to be honest I think we should do 1. regardless of whether we do 2 or not. Jamesofur (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like idea number 2 Jamesofur. This way, it could help other administrators control who gets blocked as they might not have already edited on any of the other projects, in which case blocking on the other projects would be a complete waste of time. Razor flame 04:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<--)Okay then. There seems to be a general agreement in principle. Why don't we ask EhJJ to write something and we can give it a test run? fr33kman ^talk 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a bot to do which of the following?

Open-proxy-detect: Do what en:User:ProcseeBot does: find open proxies from a published list and block them. I think this option would use a lot of resources, as there are many more open proxies than are ever abused. It makes more sense to check IPs that edit to see if they exist on an open proxy list, or
Cross-block: i.e. if an ip is blocked on any wiki as an open proxy, block on all other wikis.

I'll work on option #2 since it might be useful to have not only for open proxies but for any abusive IP or registered user. EhJJ^TALK 22:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering where we are on this thing? I know that there has been some concern about what the bot would do and what usergroup it'd be a part of. I think that there is good reason to allow a bot to run as admin. Speed of blocks, consistency of blocks, easier to keep track of blocked proxies due to logs being easier to find. I think that all projects should take part in a trial period of dry-run actions. This would include the bot making a record of the actions it would have taken for incidents that really happen. This can then be checked by the right people and verified to be the case. At that point we can then decide on the future of the bot. Thanks! fr33kman ^talk 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal re Administrators and Crats

I propose that we begin to follow the same system like the one that meta has successfully executed in that:

only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after ~~6 months~~ ~~12 months~~ 9 months of regular adminship
User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves here

The actual meta text reads, which I propose here:

Are active on Simple with over 150 ~~edits/~~log actions (after getting adminship and not including own userspace) in the last six months.
User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after he/she nominates themselves at WP:RfA.
No objections are raised in 24 hours after he/she nominates themselves at WP:Requests for adminship. If objections are raised, a short discussion should ensue, at which point after 48 hours, preferably, an uninvolved bureaucrat will close it and analyse whether consensus believes the concerns are valid or not. If the concerns are considered valid by consensus, he/she must nominate themselves via a one-week RfB process identical to RfA and pass to become a bureaucrat.

Where the two positions are bundled together. Administrators already judge consensus on discussions, this will telescope into RFx discussions as well. Additionally, administrators who are interested in helping in bot and/or renaming areas, can do so. After some discussion, I intend we put it to a straw poll vote/!vote as well. Thank you for yout consideration. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, considering that it's worked well over at Meta for several years. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Works for me. Barras (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should have happened a LONG time ago. Majorly talk 16:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me too. Agree with Majorly. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, no issues with the idea. fr33kman ^talk 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea, but worry about the relatively short cut-offs. I'm not one to drag out processes unnecessarily, but allowing only 24 hours for issues to be raised is not enough time. Perhaps allow two days? I'd rather delay someone getting the bit by a day than have to go through a "de-"something later. EhJJ^TALK 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully to address your concerns... the requirements for two crat certification, will hopefully stop any "de-somethings" later, while still allowing the community some (albeit abbreviated) time to express concerns. The intent here is to assume admins already know how to judge consensus, and are trusted while permitting an abbreviated process. I think we all want to discourage trophy hunting and demystify the "power" behind our various positions. This is a positive stop for this wiki. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supported this last time someone suggested it. I would rather however, that someone need to be an admin for a year rather than 6 months. So we can see a commitment to staying around. I think 6 months is a relatively short time. This will help to avoid people trying to race to crat and then disappearing right away. -DJSasso (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would have an issue with that. I've taken liberty to extend the above proposal to your suggestion. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a year is better, indeed. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter... but why not stick to the meta policy? Most of our crats have got the extra bit in less than a year... Pmlineditor ∞ 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 months does seem a bit short, I think. If not, 9 months maybe? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 months is imo enough, as mentioned above that's the current time with the admin rights before running for other tools (I guess, not sure). Just make a rule that people you have extra rights and don't edit get their rights revoked. Barras (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think ours should be longer is simply that meta is a different type of community with stewards and such active on it frequently so issues that might occur can be caught and fixed quicker. I don't see a reason to be less than a year, while I won't argue it tooth and nail. I do think at the minimum they should have to be on the wiki for a year perhaps instead of admin for a year. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of the "uninvolved crat" bit. I think people are able to act without a conflict of interest even in a matter they have participated in. To enforce it being an uninvolved person says that for each event someone is not permitted to vote. I think anyone should be able to take part in anything, so I'd prefer that to change personally. fr33kman ^talk 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the agreement? Majorly talk 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it looks we are in agreement that we use this new rules mentioned above. No opposes are risen, no concerns. So we just need to change the CFA page. There we go, a new system. Barras (talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks as follows:

There seems to be trouble to agree on the length of time someone has been an admin before they can be nominated for crat (Currently seen 6 months, 9 months, 12 months). I think with that goes the level of activity - 150 admin actions in 12 months is different from 150 admin actions in 6 months.
There generally seem to be issues with the timing; This Wikipedia has less activity than most. If someone has been an admin for six months or more, it should not matter whether they wait a day, or a week before they can become a bureaucrat. Longer time periods are probably better, as some of us do have a life outside WP, and do not get a chance to check daily.
There seems to be a problem with the "uninvolved" crat- Taken literally, it means the crat who closes cannot voice their opinion, to be a clear support or oppose of the candidate in question. A crat should however be able to judge community consensus; this may involve having one opinion, and closing differently, as the "consensus" is different.

As a general note, may users advocate a change, so it might be worth looking into it further. - I hope this more or less sums up the positions. --Eptalon (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the time is increased (such as from 6 months to 12 months), the number of log actions to count as "active" should be increased as well. Chenzw Talk 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 months admin, 150 actions, 1 year active works for me. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that we use a smaller time criterion (i.e. 6 months minimum) but require a larger activity criterion (such as 200 admin actions). In my opinion, being more active should get you "promoted" faster than just being here a long time. Additionally, notice that it says "in the past 6 months". So, if someone is an admin here for two years, they need at least 150 actions in the past six months. Also, keep in mind that these are minimum requirements. I've taken the liberty of striking "edits" in the requirements above, because we clearly want crats who do more than just edit here, they need to be active admins. EhJJ^TALK 11:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normal editors?

Hello there, I did a little count:

18 admins listed as active
5 bureaucrats (7 total, 2 inactive)
5 oversighters
3 checkusers

And there are between five and ten regular, unprivileged contributors (not counting rollback as a privilege). Would it not be time to change something? - Grinning sheepishly --Eptalon (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our criteria, bureaucrats, checkusers and oversighters need to be admin, so there are 18 admins (some with more privs), compared to about 10 named users.--Eptalon (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here. It's better if more editors are admins. In an ideal world, every editor would be trusted to maintain the wiki. Majorly talk 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need in generell more user and it doesn't matter if with or without extra tools. I don't see the point of this counting. Barras (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Majorly. While achieving adminship shouldn't be people's goal, it's definitely helpful if the majority of editors can take care of spam quickly and efficiently. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, remember, the fifth of November...

I don't know, this is perhaps a short notice, but on Nov. 5, 1605 the Gunpowder Plot took place; influential catholics wanted to kill King James I of England, and most of the (Protestant) aristocracy. Guy Fawkes was the man in charge, even though Robert Catesby did the planning.

Anyway, if we want ot do anything meaningful, the articles need to be written and brought up to a certain standard. This is of course just an idea...--Eptalon (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should work on that. --Bsa dow ski1 22:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a priority would be to get five articles to DYK standard and get them all on DYK from the 5th to the 10th. If we can get a VGA too then brilliant, but I can't help feeling with four days to go it would be a rush job, and even if it was decent no guarantees it would be promoted. Perhaps keep the idea on the backburner till next year, and do it for Christmas, New Year or something instead? Gob lin 23:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

Penny for the Guy? Well, I think that Guy Fawkes would be more doable in the very limited time available. I'd suggest given the amount of editing we need to do we work on a copy in userspace rather than the live article. Let's take sections (sign up on the talk page for what you want to work on). Because of the limited time we should try to avoid needing to creat too many redlinks, but not at the expense of the reader. Remember to only use the section edit buttons to work on your section. :) Good luck! fr33kman ^talk 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me a note on my talk page, and I'll get to it tomorrow. --Eptalon (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friends, how are you all doing? I have a doubt: I was checking the article Guy Fawkes on Wikipedia in English and the first part of the article is just the same. Is it alright to leave like that on our Project? Hugs, Isaac Mansur ^Post 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close Simple English WQ (3)

Because there are a lot of users who work on multiple Simple English projects I thought it would be a good idea to draw people's attention to the discussion posted by Anonymous_Dissident on Meta proposing that Simple English Wikiquote be closed. - Jamesofur (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's events - BG7

Not all of the community follows WP:AN closely, so with that in mind, I bring attention to this event. The details of the block are final, but BG7 has issued a statement that may be of interest to many. Regards, fr33kman ^talk 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole city thing

There has been much talk in this community about the prevelance of articles on cities and towns that are one-two sentences plus, if you're lucky, an infobox. With regard to the U.S. and Canada, I think that we should pick ~1,000 American cities and ~100 Canadian cities, and those articles need to be created and then expanded, or at least not deleted. Sort of a prototype SimWikiProject Cities' top and high priorities. I have created the beginnings of such a list, which can be found at User:Purplebackpack89/Vital Cities in the United States and Canada. Feel free to comment on that list. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy for any article to be created, as long as it meets criteria. Majorly talk 02:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article can be created if it meets notability criteria, we cannot change this rule. However I think as a community we really should try to get everyone actively involved in expanding stubs and making better articles rather than writing hundreds of one or two sentence stubs on similar topics. Far from me to dictate, if people want to do that, they can; but I feel it's not the best use of time and/or effort. FSM ^Noodly? 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually what PB is getting at. We have a bunch of one line stubs and others wanted to delete them because they were one line. PB wants us to work on making the cities on this list be more than one line. -DJSasso (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, expand them and not delete them. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Not that I know much about American cities, but I'd be willing to help. FSM ^Noodly? 00:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) The idea behind deleting them is/was twofold:

At the time of this writing, they are one or two line stubs (... is a city in (pick US or Canadian State). In this form they aren't helpful (and could probably be speedy deleted).
Some of these are hard to verify, let alone hard to expand beyond pure statistical data (There are 750 people in 80 families...). If this is the case, and they cannot be expanded beyond that, they should still be deleted

For my part, I think a first step of a solution would be to pick a few and expand them. Like eg. 3 citites per US state, or top 50 cities in the US,...--Eptalon (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gale.

Hey guys. I was just browsing when I came across the Gale article. Looks like one of the templates used in the article is outdated or something and it isn't reading it properly. I think it is in the conversions from knots to km/h. I fixed most of it, but there is still the one "Template:Convert/LoffAoffDbSon" redlink there. I am not sure what is causing that. If somebody could take a look at that and try to make something of it, that would be great. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done We imported the Convert template from en; apparently its still broken in parts. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are hundreds of subtemplates for convert. And we are missing many of them. Anytime you see one of the redlinks let an admin know and we can import it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, but the template redlink is still there, and because of it the article doesn't make sense to the reader...--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected {{Convert/LoffAonSon}} to {{Convert/LoffAonSoff}}, this should take care of it. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That did the trick. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Got another one. Geography of Romania has a similar problem with the convert templates. I am completely unfamiliar with it and don't want to make it any worse.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Griffin--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Karkos, notability question.

http://www.wmtw.com/station/4030562/detail.html This is information on Norm Karkos news anchor for WMTW news in Portland, Maine. If someone could write this up as notabily enough that would be great or I could write a bio-stub on him but i need to know if he is notabil enough? Thanks SaskMan826 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think this is okay to add? or not notable enough? Thanks. SaskMan826 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I ask a question

If you are a admin please put you name here so can goto your talk page and ask you a question. my talk page is http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FrancisLightHouse-Owner

Hi FrancisLightHouse-Owner, You can see all of our admins at the bottom of the page WP:Administrators but I'll be happy to help you as well :) Jamesofur (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some question and I prefeur if I say them on my talk page. Is that ok?

Vandalism at an all time high....

I know admins are trying to revert the vandalism as quickly as they can but it seems like its just non stop. there must be a easier way. SaskMan826 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a few bots to help us. Also, if you'd like I can enable rollback rights on your account so you can help out. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism isn't actually all that bad here compared to english wikipedia. Most vandalism is gone pretty quickly. -DJSasso (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to face the fact the more pages we create, the more popular we become, the more vandals will come and vandalize. I don't actually think it's as bad as sometimes in the past. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if driveby IP editors had to sign up. That would at least made a hurdle in the effort to vandalise. Majorly talk 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed fr33kman ^talk 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would make them an affort to vandalise here, but on the other hand, they create a mass of accounts with bad usernames. This doesn't make the work less. Perhabs we should like enwiki disallow the page creating for IPs. But we shouldn't disallow all IP edits. It's still a free encyclopaedia where all are invited to help, even IPs. Barras (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Barras. Forcing people to create accounts wouldn't significantly reduce vandalism, potential vandals will simply take five seconds to create an account and vandalise anyway. Tempodivalse 16:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger problem will be the names of the accounts. Just disallow page creation for IPs. --Barras (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Crossing...

As you might know, Beaver Crossing (at EnWP) is a city in Nebraska. Since it had like 470 people in 2000, it would likely be a one-sentence stub, or similar to the EnWP article, that only lists statistics.

Since there are editors working on fixing the problem, I think we should simply give a deadline. One-sentence-stubs are deletable by current deletion policy. I therefore propose that starting next year, anyone who comes across such an article should delete it, if they have the right tools. Even if we delete one or two too much, such articles are easy to re-create with hopefully better content. And before I forget, Iqaluit is the capital of Nunavut. About 7.500 people live there. --Eptalon (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did you know that Iqaluit is the most northerly and fastest growing capital in Canada? Making the stubs bigger ---Peterdownunder (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings on this are I personally think no stubs should be deleted on site unless they are not notable if its a one sentence stub let someone add on more thats what wikis are all about i thought... lol. anyway just my 2 cents worth. SaskMan826 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about anyone that comes across one, fixes it? Sounds like a better idea to me. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about those who create these stubs put a tiny bit of effort in and make them actually articles, rather than a single useless sentence? Majorly talk 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Useless" is a strong word, Majorly. I don't think one sentence should be considered as being "useless" but you have your opinion. SaskMan826 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to stubs that already exist. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the stubs are already there. Fix them, don't delete them. And we can't expect each new user to create a full fledged article. There will be some stubs. We have already put a stop to experienced users using bots to create one line stubs. So the creation of them by experienced users is not really an issue anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's not hard to write a paragraph on a topic. And I am not proposing we go and delete everything already here (though if I had my way, I would), just not add to the chaff. Majorly talk 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to align text

How do you align objects and text in Wikipedia? Thanks. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<div style="float:right">
I'm floating right. Go me.
</div>

<center>
I'm like, aligned centre. Woo.
</centre>

I'm already left aligned. Yay!

—MC8 (b · t) 11:29, Saturday November 7 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Microchip08. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna say "float:right;" will make it go right but it will also make other text build around it, use this:

<div style="text-align: right;">
I'm aligned right.
</div>

Just trying to help.-- † CR ₉₀ 01:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive admins proposed guideline/policy

Perhaps, in light of the two new requests for de-sysop of inactive admins it's a good time to finish looking at WP:Inactive administrators? Thanks! fr33kman ^talk 01:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that it should be 6 months over a year but something is better then nothing ;)

Support Jamesofur (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there's (AFAICT) unanimous consensus, I've taken the liberty of implementing that as policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is bad, because you can't assume that. Especially being it was only proposed (again) only 14 hours ago and this whole time period was over night for people in North America. Personally I like the idea of pruning inactive admins. I don't however like the idea that its just an automatic removal versus an desysop request. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This policy was discussed before without alot of people opposing, it was then brought up again and appeared to be getting unanimous support. Deciding that we had had enough conversation was not an invalid decision (in my opinion) especially since the last time it was brought up people apparently decided it wasn't that important to oppose. If people have a problem with the policy let's talk about it (It is obviously not hard to give back the bit), if not lets move on. As anyone who has seen my comments before on inactive admins you'll obviously realize I'm biased (I think 6 months inactivity is easily enough for it to be taken away and that the En attitude about it is somewhat stupid) Jamesofur (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps, I tried to simplify the policy and added a suggested line on the talk page Jamesofur (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't have a huge problem with it. I just don't like the way we rush here sometimes. Could have waited 24 hours. Ther was no rush. -DJSasso (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Djsasso. Not every one had a chance to voice themselves in the discussion.-- † CR ₉₀ 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject References

A new WikiProject - WikiProject References has been released. It aims to add references to articles in Simple English Wikipedia. Please see this page if you would like to become a member. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection templates

After almost 4 hours of work (3 hours without wanting to ask for help and then another hour after I got pointed in the right direction of what I have missing) we have protection templates with the correct top icon. I am going to bed :) but we will want to adjust the wording on templates so they are simpler (not to mention the docs). I will definitely work on simplifying the templates tomorrow. If you want to know a bit more technical but important data about what I did see below if not just skip it :) However, if you see any issues with ANY top icons please let me know so that I can fix them, it isn't hard but I may have missed some (for why see below). Also: obligatory thank you to MZMcbride for the help :).

Warning somewhat technical and boring info ignore if bored easily As part of the fix I made some changes to how ALL of our top icons work. We are no longer using the old java script method we were using before because I was worried about some problems that it could cause. I therefore removed that class and totally replaced it with the new "topicon" class using css (from en). On the recommendation of MZMcbride I also imported a script from En that keeps the top icons working when there is a global notice that pushes them down. All of these changes have been added to the global monobook.css and .js. They appear to be working for all users in other skins but if I need to I'll move them over to common.css and .js because they should still work just as well there. If you have any questions about what I did please feel free to let me know either here, on irc,email,talk page whatever works :) Oh and Template:Top icon if you want to make your own. Jamesofur (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the {{vgood}} on Billy Graham. --Barras (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I can't even see the {{good}} and both I can't see on any page. Barras (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works now, the browser cache. --Barras (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aye, browser cache would do it because of the changes Jamesofur (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German League articles

Following on from a point previous raised by, I think, Majorly, what is the point in articles such as German 2. Bundesliga 1979–80? Will anyone really want to use Simple for them? How can articles made up of chunks of numbers be simplified? Soup Dish (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one of several hundreds of Nameless User's creations. --Barras (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well known issue, as mentioned though, the issue is we can't pick and choose, we either wipe out all articles or we leave them as they are notable and thus meet the requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are a bunch of statistics notable? Majorly talk 18:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed them all for deletion a couple of months ago, and they didn't go through, but in my opinion, they are not useful and should be deleted. Razor flame 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A soccer season of a major league is notable. As much as you don't think its useful. Please remember to seperate the two. Books are constantly written about a bunch of statistics. Especially of professional leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't have more than one article of the same thing. I don't see why we can't consolidate ALL of the years of one of the leagues from the numerous articles that they currently have to something set up like this:

German League statistics-the main list
German League statistics/1901-1902
German League statistics/1902-1903

and so on. I think that that is the best way of dealing with this as the articles themselves are not really articles, but if they were formatted in this way, then they would be considered notable because they would be part of a list. Razor flame 04:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because in general there should not be subpages of articles. And really that is no different than the current situation. And having them all on one page is not realistic either as the page would be insanely huge. Wikipedia is not paper. And they are not more than one article on the same thing, that are articles on individual seasons. -DJSasso (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not paper. I don't need you to remind me of that. I also know that they can't all be on the same page because of the size issue. Furthermore, why can't there be subpages for articles? The en:List of asteroids on the English Wikpiedia has subpages of an article, so I don't see why they can't be used here. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, I know that they are about individual seasons, which is why the subpage idea is a good one, because it would allow for the user to browse from a list of the seasons and then go to the correct subpage to read the statistics about said season. That is the only way that I can see them being notable. Otherwise, I am going to nominate them for deletion because they are not notable on their own currently. Razor flame 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not a list! They are a season of a professional sports league. Would you say that the 2009 Major League Baseball season was not notable? Yes the articles are written poorly, Nameless should atleast make an effort to write decent season articles. But trying to claim they are not notable is plainly rediculous and sounds like sour grapes. Yes a list could be written linking to these season, but moving them to subpages is a rediculous. And your asteroids example is compeletly different because that is a list. These are articles about seasons, the asteroids are simple a list. And upon looking, even the list you use as an example doesn't use subpages. -DJSasso (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability? Well, maybe the seasons are. But the stats too? Surely not. We are not a database. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stats are intrical to the season, just like a persons physical/mental characteristics etc are in a persons bio. However, I fully agree he needs to write more prose, and if we wish to delete based on WP:NOT#STATS then I don't have a problem with it. However, deleting on the grounds of notability I would have issue with. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a blacklisted username...

The user name "Kevin_(_________)" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*Kev.*

I have this user name on Commons and on Wikipedia... There is no reason it should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.184.45 (talk • contribs)

Move to the buttom of the page. I don't know why it is added. Can perhabs be removed. --Barras (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was probably part of a vandal naming scheme. I will remove it as its far to vague. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators

The policy is badly worded, not simple english and contradictory. Can we have another discussion about this and write a simple policy. Thanks, Yotcmdr ^=talk= 14:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to simplify the policy to make it easier to understand and follow our general practices (ie. changes instead of edits) let me know if you think it needs more Jamesofur (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done more. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 06:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki

Is it just me or is the interwiki link system not working? Griffinofwales2 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki system seems to be down. See my userpage... several red links. --Barras (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. You only have to see this page. Lots of red iw links at the top. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just iw links. See the links to the other simple wikis on RC. Down too. It may be all external links. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I say that, all seems to be back to normal. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 18:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were broken on all WMF projects. The devs have fixed it. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of complex articles?

I've been thinking about this lately, and in my opinion we should just delete complex articles, regardless of whether or no they're copied from the English Wikipedia verbatim. I therefore propose adding "Too complex" to the QD criteria. This could be a bit vague, but we would ideally leave it to the reviewing admin to determine if the article is really too complicated to justify keeping it around. Really if an article isn't written in Simple English, it doesn't belong on Simple Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This encourages editors to write in Simple English, and will prevent violations of this Wikipedia's main purpose. —Mythdon ^{[talk] [changes]} 01:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if I support or not. I agree deleting too complex articles would be a good thing, but I worry that its far too subjective. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with DJSasso here. Everyone will have a different sense of complexity, so one article that may be complex to one user, may not be complex for another user. As DJSasso said, it is too subjective. It would have to be for pages that are so complex that not even a professor could understand it. Razor flame 04:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to agree with Djsasso. What is complex. Any admin can have an other idea about what complex is. The could create drama due to different views. --Barras (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal in principle however I do think that before it's implemented it will need some discussion and working out of exactly what constitutes complex. The automated tool could be used to give an idea (though should not be used on its own at all) and then sentence length, word length and the general lexis used within the text. (Sorry, in English lesson as I write this, lots of big English terms being used :P) Perhaps if not a QD criteria it could be something that articles can be more readily RfD'd for, without getting responses such as "{{sofixit}}" and the like (yes, I know this is all slightly hypocritical). Perhaps also we could run a "trial" whereby articles that would be QDable under the new criteria are listed on a page and then the admins (or wider community) can see if they would agree or not. This could also be done through an RfD. Just my 2p :) Gob lin 14:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Well, nearly all of the QDs are subjective to an extent and require some level of judgment. (What's "non-notable"? "No context"?) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a QD for non-notable (edit: although I suppose its worded that way on the template documentation on simple). There is one for making no assertion of notability which is pretty cut and dry. I would think no context is pretty straight forward as well, if you can't tell what the article is talking about then it has no context. Complexity however is very arbitrary. I have seen numerous debates over if a word is simple or not and many opinions on the same word. But as goblin mentions we could simply use mechanical means to make the call, however I am not a huge fan of that. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya, just want to note I'm not a fan of using the mechanical version either, but it's there so I thought I would suggest it as a possible alternative :) Gob lin 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty![reply]

(<-) Hello, I think that the subject is more complex than it looks at first. In theory, we could go with the "quick deletion" of a "complex" article, but with a few provisions:

An editor or group of editors is currently not working at a rewrite or extension of the article in question. When rewriting or extending, one way is to first "get all the content" and then "simplifying" what is there.
The article has been "left alone" in the current complex state for some time.
The article indeed has a complex language (and not just a {{complex}} tag), and this cannnot be fixed with relatively little work.

Once we are through checking all those steps, we are probably not talking about "quick deletion" any more - we might as well file a regular RfD. As always, just my thoughts. --Eptalon (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works. We could even do something like enwiki's PROD process, where an article is tagged and then deleted a week later if no-one objects. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we have/is there a page with all the pages tagged with complex, to see how many articles we'd potentially lose? Yotcmdr ^=talk= 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least a kind of a list can be found here --Barras (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After a quick look, it's around 1200 articles. Some of them though, can be simplified quite easily I think. Yotcmdr ^=talk= 22:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Site notice at the top

If you'd like to hide it, just copy my monobook.css to your own monobook.css. --Barras (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can turn it off in your preferences I believe, under gadgets it has Hide Site Notice. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not working Sass. It's for the Donations notice - or it might be Vector. And cheers Barras :) Gob lin 19:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

Works fine for me... Probably vector, vector doesn't work for anything. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh ya. Switched to Mono and it works. Cheers, Gob lin 19:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy![reply]

If you use vector, try to add it to Special:MyPage/vector.css. This could work. --Barras (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should work for vector but you will have to put it into Special:MyPage/vector.css Jamesofur (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i'm not fussed about hiding it, was simply letting people know that the Gadgets link won't work in Vectah :) :P Cheers, Gob lin 19:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]