Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 80

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Twinkle

I've finally figured out how to download Firefox, and therefore, Twinkle, on my computer, after pestering a vast variety of very patient people with thousands of fruitless questions about it. I just have a question: every page I change with Twinkle gets put onto my watchlist. :p Is there a reason for this or a way to change it? Classical Esther^♣ 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in Special:Preferences there's a checkbox to mark each page being edited in watchlist when you load it or not. Try and have a look. Nifky^{^} 04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the default option. You can change a number of things according to the instructions at en:Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Configuration. Of course, if someone wants to translate the instructions into Simple English, that would be appreciated! EhJJ^TALK 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if Nifky?'s suggestion does not work, add the following code to your monobook.js:

if( typeof( TwinkleConfig ) == 'undefined' ) TwinkleConfig = {}; // DO NOT REMOVE THIS LINE - ALL TWINKLE SETTINGS AFTER THIS
TwinkleConfig.watchRevertedPages			=	false;
TwinkleConfig.watchSpeedyPages				=	false;

Making sure that you have both lines that begin with TwinkleConfig. on seperate lines. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 04:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, all of you are so clever! Thank you so much for all these quick and detailed replies. :) I just have another question, though it's not related to Twinkle really: when I use Firefox, all the collapsible boxes on my user page and on my Wikiproject Literature don't collapse. :p Could you please tell me why this happens? Thanks once again, Classical Esther^♣ 04:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any indication of collapsible boxes on your userpage. It's not firefox's fault. Nifky^{^} 04:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't? :o The little pink and green boxes? For instance, in juliancolton's user page, there's a blue collapsible box that says "Awards and other nice things". Well, that once isn't collapsed either...? Classical Esther^♣ 04:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are... Mine is supposed to be collapsable too. BTW, Lauryn, I copied your helpful advice to Classical Esther! :) I was just wondering that, too... Also, how do you refresh your monobook? ♥ Belinda ♥ 04:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page it will say how to refresh your cache to see the changes in your monobook.css. @Esther: If it's collapsible, it should have an [expand] or [collapse] thing on the top right hand side of the box that is clickable and is valid javascript. I haven't seen this in yours yet. Nifky^{^} 04:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yay!!! Firefox rocks :). Hey, Esther, you'd probably like this as well... irrelevant, but awesome. Anyway. Your boxes don't appear to be collapsible... My enWP user page has collapsible boxes down the side. On a separate note, do I have to request AWB to use it here? If so, where? SS✞^(Kay) 05:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be AWB confirmed (just like Huggle) to use it here. I can add you to the checkpage if you would like (protected). Nifky^{^} 05:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please. :) SS✞^(Kay) 05:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nifky^{^} 05:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kay, for the link! :) @Nifky?: Thank you for the reply. Before I used firefox there were [show] and [hide] things on the boxes, but after I downloaded it, it doesn't work...do I have to have it AWB confirmed (whatever that is :p)? If so, could you do it for me? Sorry for all these bothersome requests and questions, Classical Esther^♣ 05:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther: no, you don't have to be AWB confirmed... :) Anyway, I have a stupid question: How do I change AWB from enWP to simple? I don't know how... SS✞^(Kay) 05:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but when I use Internet Explorer it says [hide] on the right side of the box. When I use the Firefox, it does not say anything. :) ?? And also, I read the instructions on my monobook... It says for Firefox to press "ctrl" and click "Refresh", but I don't know where the refresh button is. ♥ Belinda ♥ 05:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Refresh button is the little circle-arrow blue button beside the green left arrow on the left top of the browser. SS✞^(Kay) 06:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I made a word mistake: I wrote "refresh" instead of "reload". BTW, Kay, I don't see any refresh button either. ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out another sweet way... I pressed ctrl and f5 or f4 (I forgot which one) and it worked. Thankyou all! ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ctrl + f5. @Singlish speaker, in the preferences popup (something like that) you can change the project. Select simple. Nifky^{^} 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! @Belinda: I just uploaded [this screenshot], the circled button is the reload, but I guess you don't need that now :) (So admins: delete when this is over. I can't access Commons, that's all.) SS✞^(Kay) 06:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For changing projects in AWB, it's Options > Preferences > Site tab, then change language to Simple. And if we are adding names to the AWB list, could someone throw mine on there? :) Thanks in advance! -Avic enna sis @ 06:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nifky^{^} 06:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link you sent me, Kay, but it doesn't work... Oh well, I can just use F5. Thx, Nifky, for telling me! Btw, I tried to fix the boxes on my user page but it said "collapsible" in the box, that means it is supposed to collapse... ;p I just shamelessly copied the boxes from juliancolton you see... ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While yours will probably look a bit different, the refresh button is the circle with the arrow on the end (third from left) in this screenshot. Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't collapse :p but it's not really that important anyway. Thank you very much, everyone. Classical Esther^♣ 06:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
For what it's worth, I have collapsible boxes at my userpage on enwp, and I copied them over to simple, and the same code will not collapse it here. I am using Opera. Dunno what the difference is. :-/ I will find out someday though. -Avic enna sis @ 06:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, just realised. Twinkle doesn't show up for me on this Wikipedia. It does fine, on enWP... also, same with the editing toolbar brought up earlier by Scream, I don't have that either. Is it a problem with my computer? SS✞^(Kay) 08:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's wonky and half-arse if you just check the box in Special:Preferences. It should work if you add this:

importScript('User:EhJJ/twinkle.js');

To your monobook.js and then purge your cache. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now it works. Great! (p.s. there's a typo in the qd interface-- should be "vice versa" not "vise versa", who ever has access to edit twinkle.) SS✞^(Kay) 08:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific as to its location? Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see it, on QD R2. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks, Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Fixed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Aha! I found my issue at least! When I have Twinkle enabled under my preferences, it breaks the collapsible boxes. When I instead add importScript('User:EhJJ/twinkle.js'); to my monobook,js the boxes work fine. Thanks everyone! -Avic enna sis @ 09:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That answers like everyone's issues... thanks! :) SS✞^(Kay) 09:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly misspelled words

Simple English Wikipedia exists for a few reasons, and one of them being to aid non-native speakers learn English. There is a very helpful article at enwp on commonly misspelled words, that I think may be helpful here. (In fact, It's on my todo list for spelling cleanup.) I have transcribed and simplified as best I can this article, and it is currently in my sandbox. However, I wanted to seek the opinion of the community before I created it in article space. On one hand, it may be very helpful to non-native speakers, as I stated above. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage guide. I'll admit that I don't think there would be any drama over me being bold and ignoring the rules, I've been wrong before on some similar issues. So: opinions, please? :) -Avic enna sis @ 06:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that there is already content at List of common misspellings in English, so perhaps you could merge some of your content there? Kansan (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article you have been working on is much more useful than the list, and referenced too. I would like to see your article in mainspace, and we could delete the list. Be bold. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think Peter's suggestion is right. That would be easiest, and I'm sure most useful content is already in your article anyway. Kansan (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will move it to mainspace. Thanks! :) Perhaps instead of deletion we could re-direct the list? Not sure if that would be helpful or not. -Avic enna sis @ 06:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds good --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. :) -Avic enna sis @ 12:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I just checked the box next to using Hot Cat in my preferences, but how am I supposed to use it? I'm afraid my slow eyes can't find any difference. ♥ Belinda ♥ 13:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's located where it says 'Category' at the bottom of the page. There's a (-) and (+) sign next to the category - which is HotCat. Nifky^{^} 13:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject namespace?

Hi, I was wondering if there should be created a Wikiproject namespace, like wikis such as the Spanish Wikipedia. This would help projects at the user namespace. Feel free to give your opinion (or vote ;] ) --Диего Грез (Diego Grez) (говорить) 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you thing is not working with the way it currently exists in user spaces? Like what do you believe at the benefits to this v. the current system? Either way (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just proposing something that could give wikiprojects more status. --Диего Грез (Diego Grez) (разговор) 03:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed numerous times, for the most part we do not support wikiprojects here, which is why people create them in userspace. Numerous times this has been brought up but usually the arguements is that we don't have the users to truely support userprojects. Just look at any of the ones in userspace. Almost all of them are inactive for the most part. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Films vs Movies

I noticed we have all of our movie articles under Cat:Movies and en.wiki has them all under Cat:Films. Why is this? Synergy 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one changed it back in 2004. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then is it safe to assume it can be changed now? I'd rather have a discussion before asking someone with a bot to switch them all and delete the cat. I'm about to make a movie-stub and I'd rather it be the proper template. Synergy 00:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will take a long time, but go for it. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is it alright for me to do it now with AWB or not? I'm happy to... SS✞^(Kay) 00:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Just make sure every subcats matches with en.wiki please. Synergy 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Okay. Do I need the flood flag to do it? SS✞^(Kay) 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you're doing is changing all the pages in Category:Movies to Category:Films? Lauryn (u • t • c) 00:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. That and the subcategories. Synergy 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the word "movie" simpler than "film", though? Younger users may not be as familiar with the word "film". I did check the expanded wordlist under BE, and neither word appear, but I'm not sure we should rush into this change. Kansan (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For our users, we can leave the rename tag on the category instead of deleting it (although if they are young enough to edit I seriously think they can grasp this basic concept). Our audience won't be looking for categories, only articles and I doubt they will care which cat we put it in. Synergy 01:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get it to save. Weird, I dunno if it's the computer or if I"ve done something wrong. SS✞^(Kay) 01:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when you try to save?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It freezes. SS✞^(Kay) 01:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems people ate doing it already, but definitely films over movies. I recall we had this discussion when discussing the stub type. The latter is very much an Americanism too, or so Ive found, with film being more global. Gob lin 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

This was discussed a couple of years ago, not left from 2004. It was decided that while film had multiple meanings, movie did not and as such was the simplest way of describing the category of motion pictures. No changes until a community consensus is reached please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film is the more international word, definitely. Yottie ^=talk= 18:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While no guide to the truth, Google returns twice as many hits for "movie" (which only means movie) as it does "film" (which could also be looking up things like the physical media on which movies are shot, a thin layer of liquid, or even "cling film"). So while it's okay to say that "movie" is American while "film" is international, the stats don't necessarily back that up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably due to the large amount of american websites about movies. Google translation says that film is the same word in Albanian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Filipino, French, Galician (fime), German, Hungarian (Filmben), Icelandic, Indonesian, Italian, Latvian (filma), Lithuanian (filmas), Malay (filem), Maltese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese (filme), Romanian (de film), Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish (pelicula or sometimes Film), Swahili (Filamu), Sweedish, Turkish, Vietnamese (phim), Welsh (FFilm), and Yiddish; 31 different languages. I think we need to face the facts. Yottie ^=talk= 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about "facing facts" as you put it, it's about using the most common and (importantly) most unambiguous term. Perhaps you should find the archive where this was discussed ad infinitum beforehand. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use a word used in 1 country, ok, fine. I prefer using the one most countries use. The context will always help, and people will obviusly know it's not about 'liquid film' or 'cling film'. There won't be any ambiguity. The most common word is film, which is a fact. I don't know how you can deny it... Yottie ^=talk= 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To help Yot [1] is the discussion. It was discussed before then however. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "want to use a word used in 1 country" (and by the way, that's a sweeping generalisation without any foundation of evidence), I want a community discussion and a consensus to form before we all go AWB-crazy and change everything. I'm not even trying to "deny it" as you say, I don't know where you got any evidence for that assertion of "fact". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard evidence by any means, but for the sake of at least finding a starting point, I would be interested in hearing from some of our UK/Australian/NZ users if the word "movie" is at least generally understood in their respective countries. Kansan (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK-based input: yes, 100% movie is unambiguously equivalent to a motion picture. It is less common than the word film in this locale, but still performs as a like-for-like description. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't deny that you haven't given me any proof yet either. Also, Film comes up with 655,000,000 results, whereas move comes up with 627,000,000 results, which is not what you said (Google returns twice as many hits for "movie" (which only means movie) as it does "film".) Yottie ^=talk= 20:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Ghits results aren't what I said they were, not sure how I managed that. Anyway, per your need for my proof, I don't need any, I'm saying the status quo should remain until a consensus is reached that it's not good enough. You're the one stating that "movie" is used in "1 country" and that I am attempting to deny some kind of unwritten "truth". Weird. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I Googled "movies" and "films" to get those results, per the header of this section, just for what it's worth. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) My hobby is photography; I do have a camera that takes "films", depending on the format (24x36), they come in 12,24 and 36 pictures "per film (cartridge)" (12 have probably died out by now);In the "sciences", film can also describe a thin layer of liquid (usually on a solid); Biology uses it as to speak about certain membranes. In that respect, movie is probably the better word, because it just has this one meaning. Even though, I would personally prefer to use film to refer to a motion picture, movie will help our audience more, as it is less ambiguous.--Eptalon (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I googled both of them, too (those are the numbers I got above). Here's what my concise oed (Oxford English Dictionary) says: Movie - n. esp. US colloq. A motion picture film. then take the definition of colloquial, from the same dictionary: cooloquial - adj. belonging to or proper to ordinary or familiar conversation, not formal or literary.. Surely, that means that for that reason alone, film should be prefered. Also per the especially US... Yottie ^=talk= 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you tell them, which one of the myriad of meanings of film you are referring to? --Eptalon (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes colloquialisms are preferred in basic English. For example, in Wikipedia:Basic_English_ordered_wordlist, "till" is listed as a preposition, meaning "until". My understanding is that in formal English, "till" is not an acceptable preposition, but the point is clear: meaning sometimes trumps colloquialism avoidance. Kansan (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's down to context. I can't imagine an article where it would be hard to understand what film meant. If you have an example, please, I'd love to see it. Yottie ^=talk= 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we return to exactly what this project is trying to achieve and precisely what we're attempting to achieve with this discussion? In other words, which word is clearest, most obvious, least ambiguous, to describe a "motion picture"? It's pretty obvious that movie and film are commonly interchangeable in a lot of locales. We need to establish if Simple English Wikipedia is one of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansan: Till is not colloquial (according to oed, still). It can't always be replaced by until. Yottie ^=talk= 20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the argument: "movie" is not ambiguous, but may be colloquial; "film" is definitely not colloquial, may be associated with "Commonwealth" (British) usage, and has many meanings "other than motion picture". Personally, I think out prime goal is to be understood with "correct" English; I care less if the words used are "colloquial". No one is going to write an academic article in "Basic English", except for linguists studying Basic English as a language. --Eptalon (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Can we return to exactly what this project is trying to achieve and precisely what we're attempting to achieve with this discussion? In other words, which word is clearest, most obvious, least ambiguous, to describe a "motion picture"? It's pretty obvious that movie and film are commonly interchangeable in a lot of locales. We need to establish if Simple English Wikipedia is one of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Surely the fact Film is the same word in 30 countries+ makes it simpler. The context will never be ambiguous, and lead people to confuse it with the other meanings of film. Yottie ^=talk= 21:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per your own argument, can you explain how "movie" can be ambiguous anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already decided movie was not ambiguous, I'm just trying to prove film wouldn't be either. Yottie ^=talk= 21:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it clearly is. There are multiple definitions of "film", there is one of "movie". You need to prove we need to change the status quo, we don't need to defend it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There will never be any problems with the context. A film article will not be confused with something about photographic material or anything else. Yottie ^=talk= 21:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Movie (as you say) is unambiguous. Film (as you concede) can mean more than one thing. Prove that "film" will not be confusing to a Simple English audience, and the community, I'm sure, will be glad to consider your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I have already seen the ...'. Unambiguous for movie, ambiguous for film. Can we move on, now? - Yes I do, no you don't style debates are not very prolific. --Eptalon (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at. The whole argument is about ambiguity. Our role is to use the phrases which are "most accessible" to the world of Simple English speakers and readers. This is synonymous with relating information in an unambiguous manner. If you're suggesting we shouldn't be discussing ambiguity (or the potential for it) then I'm mildly perplexed as to what you're discussing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above the "British" word film has many meanings; movie pretty much has one meaning. The other arguments were:

There is a word film in many languages; this is not the case for movie (in favor of a change film -> movie)
The word movie may be colloquial, while film is formal (in favor of a change)

Both arguments are problematic:

While there may be a word film in another language, is it really the one used for motion picture (which is not the case for Spanish)?
Should we care about a word not being formal?

Thats what I was trying to say. Since there are no new points, however, I don't think this will lead to any "consensus" for a change. --Eptalon (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know we don't copy en, but they use film. People manadge to know what the meaning of film is there. Are you implicitly saying that people who read simple aren't bright enough to figure out what film means in the context of the article, where names of actors, producers, or just even years are stated? Do you have the 2004 edition cling film or the yearly photographic film award? I don't think so. Also, we are on the Simple English wikipedia, not the Unambiguous English Wikipedia. Film is the simpler word, more people are likely to understand it, even though there is a very small chance they don't know the right meaning of film (though that's very unlikely, as it's the same word in tens of different languages.). Yottie ^=talk= 21:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious where you have evidence to suppose that "film" is more simple than "movie" given that it can mean a number of things while "movie" can't. And you say that "film" is the "same word in tens of different languages" but in those "tens of different languages" have you checked that film doesn't mean a number of different things? i.e. is it unique to meaning "motion picture" in those "tens of different languages"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, are you implying that people can't figure out which meaning is neaded, when the name of the actors, producers, etc, figure in the article? There is more chance of them knowing the correct meaning of the word film than them knowing movie. Yottie ^=talk= 21:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, prove it. You keep saying that everyone knows "film" (in this context) more than "movie", but you have no evidence to support it. Evidence, and then a community consensus to change our thousands of pages which refer to "movie", is required, or this discussion is, while fascinating, ultimately pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more ESL speakers than american people. Film is a global word, movie, mostly american, i.e. far fewer using it. Yottie ^=talk= 21:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people of India commonly use movie. There are a billion of them. Did you ask the Chinese if they use film or movie? There's 1.2 billion of them. Your "evidence" is unsubstantiated. Sorry, until you can convince me (and the community) that we need to change then the status quo prevails. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see proof, because going onto the bollywood website, both are used, probably to avoid repetition. I can't tell you anything about Chinese. I can't read it, or understand it. Yottie ^=talk= 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed my point earlier. The onus is on you to provide evidence that "film" is unequivocally the unambiguous and simplest way of describing a motion picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're trying to do this the easy way. However, you state facts without backing them up with proof. If no proof from either side can be found, then surely we should find a different thing to debate over. I maintain, with proof, that movie is informal, and mostly used in the US. Also concerning india, according to enwp: A form of English that Indians and all the other people of the subcontinent are taught in schools is essentially British English., this suggests film is used. Film is most likely to be understood, despite the slim chance of confusing it with the other meanings. I don't care about your status quo argument. I want proof from you, otherwise I see no reason to change it to film. Yottie ^=talk= 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change only occurs when there exists a consensus to do so. To challenge the status quo, you need evidence. The onus is always on the challenging party to provide evidence that the status quo is incorrect. So far I see absolutely nothing which does that. You claim (my paraphrase) that Indian English is a result of English English. Irrelevant. We're talking about the prevalence of the term, not its derivation. If 2 or 3 billion people understand movie, then why change it to film (which you've conceded is ambiguous)? Your statement of "I don't care about your "status quo" argument..." is a clear indicator that you need to work harder on understanding how this (and other) Wikipedias work. We don't "knee-jerk", we maintain the current state of affairs until someone offers tangible and substantial evidence that things should be changed. So, please, provide the evidence that the Simple English world needs to change movie to film, convince the community so you gain a consensus, and I'll happily assist with modifying the several thousand pages this affects, no problem whatsoever. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This debate (if you can call it a debate) isn't going anywhere, as you refuse to say anything other than prove it. You said: If 2 or 3 billion people understand movie, then why change it to film. Fair enough, 2 billion people understand it (well, that's what you say, no proof...), but how many of those 2 billion use it over film? If people in india do use film, that's already over half that don't use movie. And, still per the oed, let's say The US population + a few others (300 million, maybe) use it, then surely, the more common, simple, understood, word should be used. It's getting late. Good night. Yottie ^=talk= 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

......... I'll take that as a no to my original question. SS✞^(Kay) 20:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, no to AWB changes. Until there's a consensus to change the status quo, we don't change anything, that's how Wikipedia works. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia both words are used, but movie is the word used by the media, for example in the newspaper there is the "Movie Guide" o and on television there is the "Movie Show" and the "Midday Movie". Having read all the above, I think we should stick with movie as it is clear about what it refers to. Peterdownunder (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

We now have {{Chile-stub}}. It doesn't belong to any category. When I first started editing here, we had {{stub}} and that was it. If we're now happy to have just about any stub under the sun, I'd suggest we create some kind of stub-sorting taskforce as they have on en.wiki. Or we have a "Permission to create stub" process (nothing onerous) where an admin can just say yes to the creation of a more specific stub, given decent criteria and satisfactory categorisation. Right now we have an editor tagging articles with uncategorised stubs and that's not good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are being categorized: Category:Chile stubs. I support your proposal, by the way. --Диего Грез (Diego Grez) (разговор) 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have just about any stub under the sun. In fact I didn't realize we had a Chile stub. We already have a discussion page and project for stubs at Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project. Synergy 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't saw that there was a process. If there's a problem I can undo my edits and the 'plate can go. I have no problems. --Диего Грез (Diego Grez) (разговор) 22:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we had every stub under the sun, I said If we're happy to have just about any stub under the sun.... Different altogether. But thank you for the note regarding the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

There is a new Firefox addon for adding web references, called Cite4wiki[2]. This replaces the older Wikicite. I have tried it on simple English and it work well. Also has the option for dates in either US or UK format. No excuses now for not adding a reference! Peterdownunder (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you for the link! I've installed it. What difference does it make? Classical Esther^♣ 12:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you read the "more about this add-on" section of the link that Peterdownunder provided. That will explain how it works. It's always a good idea to read that/know what you are installing before just adding things to your computer. Either way (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know how.. You have to click the right key of your mouse and then from the long list click "Cite4Wiki" I think. :) ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have been playing but I can't get the US dates to work. --Peterdownunder (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works with en and us dates very well for me. A great tool that makes sourcing easier. Barras ^talk 20:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the link, Peter! This should save us all plenty of time and help make it easier for us to resist the occasional temptation we all feel not to cite something. Kansan (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get how to use it, I tried clicking the right side of the mouse and I clicked the "Cite4Wiki" but doesn't work. I don't think I understand the explanation on the "more about this add-on". Any explanations please?? ♥ Belinda ♥ 04:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^Exactly why I asked my dumb question above :p. Computer things are very hard to understand. However, I've been fiddling around for some time with it and I think I've found out how useful it is. Belinda, when you click the Cite4Wiki, it layers out the details of the website you're getting information from and there's a button that says "copy to clipboard and close", right? Well, just click that, and it seems as if nothing has happened. Well, click the right side of the mouse again, and if you click the "paste" button (for you, 붙여넣기 in Korean computers), the reference layout will get pasted into the article. I've found it very helpful indeed, thank you Peterdownunder! Classical Esther^♣ 03:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please help

I am having a problem with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Does anyone know much about the site? They put personal information and now they want me to pay legal fees for doing arbchat. Are they joking? or is it true? Flayof (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you contact ED directly Flayof, as they are not related to Wikipedia in any way and this page is for the discussion of the Simple English Wikipedia or ask for help about it, not ED. Thanks, Gob lin 13:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

The ED folks aren't helpful. I don't know what else to do. Flayof (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing to do with ED, so you'll find less help here than you would there. Sorry we can't be of more use, but the two websites are not connected. Gob lin 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]

Japan chronology projects

Is this a good or appropriate place to post these kinds of issues?

A. The List of Emperors of Japan is a chronology. I plan to create 100+ articles with links to this list. This historical record uses the unique Japanese calendar and the Western Gregorian calendar. I have created one sample article — Emperor Ankō?

B. The list of Japanese era names in the Japanese calendar is also a chronology. I plan to create 200+ articles in the context of this list. I have created two sample articles — Shōō (Kamakura period) and Einin?

C. As you can see, the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist is supplemented with more difficult words. I provided links to relevant simple:Wikipedia articles and simple:Wiktionary definitions.

D. I have used Japanese language kanji and a diacritic (en:macron). This writing is consistent with en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan Manual of Style.

Is this good for simple:Wikipedia? Do you have comments? questions? suggestions? --Tenmei (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in general I think the plan's just fine. I have some thoughts you might consider:

• find a way to indicate when the emperor was not actually ruling the country. That's rather important, politically. I don't think it's quite right to say, as in Shogun, "The Emporer chooses the Shogun". Sometimes he did, other times he was forced. Simple yes, but accurate...

• the list of eras is too fine-grained for readers in this wiki. I would prefer to see you work more on the periods.

• learn how to do refs so you won't have to repeat the same reference so many times! Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Front page

On the front page, under "Did you know?", I think that the words "ran" and "away" should have a space in between them under the Davy Crockett item. 64.218.194.120 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Target audiences

As we all know, we have three rather different target audiences, and becuse they are different they may need different treatment. An example would be the page 'Cat', which must surely be read mostly by children. To what extent should the guidelines on language be flexible, so to meet the needs of the audience?

In any case, what do we know about our audience? I am troubled by this. I don't think any regular educational system would work so much in the dark. I would like to see some practical research done on groups of typical Simple users. And I would like to know something about our regular 'readers' (non-contributing users), and what they think about Simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but how? Griffinofwales (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The teachers at our primary school used to support Simple until they found out it, like enWP, wasn't censored. ESOL kids will never find this site on their own, likewise; more outreach to schools needs to be done, I guess. But the question remains, how? SS✞^(Kay) 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what are the three specific target audiences? In six words: Simple Wikipedia has an identity crisis. SS✞^(Kay) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Simple English Wikipedia is also for people with different needs, such as students, children, adults with learning difficulties and people who are trying to learn English." (Stolen from the Simple English Wikipedia article.) So, I would gather kids, learning impared adults, and English-as-a-second-language. Getting feedback from these usergroups would have to be specifically designed for each group... I don't know if there is a pageview stat or anything like that, either, or how helpful it would be. -Avic enna sis @ 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add on: does it bother anyone else that the Simple English Wikipedia article, on the Simple English Wikipedia, is a stub? Or just me? -Avic enna sis @ 01:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly disturbing... hmm. With regards to the students/children thing, like I said, the censorship issue remains; but judging by our most viewed articles, we'd lose a significant amount of viewership (boys my age, likely) by eliminating sex-related articles. And that's also, afaik, against the concept of Wikipedia. Mentally handicapped adults- how does one write for them? ESOL is slightly easier except that it's hard to gather exactly what they understand (apart from expletives, everyone learns those first). SS✞^(Kay) 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Speaking as an adult (23) female, I would hate to lose the sex articles as well. Also, I've been meaning to ask what "ESOL" means. Is it the same thing, more or less, as ESL (English as a Second Language)? Lauryn (u • t • c) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Yep, basically. English for Speakers of Other Languages. It's a bit vague, but the term here in NZ. Mainly because it's easy to pronounce, like Ee-sol. And I do think that the sex articles should stay. Censorship of images themselves is a separate and unresolvable issue (I don't really mind either way, but it's been tossed around at enWP soooo much.). SS✞^(Kay) 01:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there have been a couple of formal attempts to shut down SE Wikipedia before on Wikimedia, and engaging in censorship, which is anathema to the vast majority of Wikipedians, would not be a good way to prove that we are a viable Wiki that does a good service. (For what it's worth, I'm 23 too, and I was actually just looking at the same list that Kay was yesterday. It's kind of interesting how some of the most viewed articles are a mix of sex stuff and intentionally complex subjects like string theory and quantum mechanics). Kansan (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Simple English Wikipedia should be censored, to my opinion. This one is for innocent children, and they shouldn't be dirtied by such horrific things. I checked the most clicked article list, and all of the articles on there were in blue letters (which means I never saw them in my life before). Disgusting titles! I don't think children are using here; in fact, to my opinion, all the lustful adults who are crazy about sex are crowding over to simple wikipedia, too! I mean, not the wonderful users on wikipedia, but the people who read the articles, not fix them. Our main targets are children, remember, and there should be something like Winnie the Pooh or Teddy Bears on the most viewed articles, not stuff like Category:Body Parts, ect., ect. To my opinion, if these are all swiped out, better titles will come out on the most clicked list. But of course, this is just in my most humble opinion, so if others think I am wrong, just nevermind my picky opinion. ♥ Belinda ♥ 02:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like them or not, sexual topics are valid encyclopaedic topics. Life is disgusting, should we censor articles on war or child abuse as well? Or a topic closer to my own heart, violence against people who are lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender? Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't read about these things here, they no doubt can look on the regular Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the Internet. While my personal preference is that children learn about the "facts of life" from their parents, I know not all children will, and I think it's far better that they read about it in a clinical, academic setting than start Googling and ending up any number of other places on the Internet. I might add, too, that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide information; it is not up to us what others do with that information. Kansan (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! You are much too right, Kansan and Lauryn; but I think differently. We shouldn't do so, or wikipedia will not be righteous and pure. Also, it's not children that are reading those articles; children wouldn't dare to click them, at least, good children who obey their parents; it's adults and teenagers that greedily feed their eyes on such terrible things. Much, much more older people see those things than little children. The articles about such things are written very politely, clearly, and coldly, I'm sure, so it would be no harm for children's education as long as they don't put up pictures. But I think then simple english wikipedia would lose its popularity by school teachers and students, and furthermore, parents. I, too, moved from en wikipedia to simple, only at the thought of seeing that simple wikipedia was new and clean, and (as I first thought) censored. I hope it will remain so, as I first imagined it to be.♥ Belinda ♥ 03:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Kansan. I agree with you, and to my personal preference children should learn about those things from their parents, too... but... if they're the kind of people to type something like BODY, or even more annoying right on the keyboard, they would just type it on Google or some other site as well. :( Actually, I think it wouldn't be that bad if wikipedia has those kind of articles; as long as there are absolutely NO photographs about them, I agree they can stay. Putting up such photographs are just as if you are putting up porn! But, of course, what am I to say these things? I'm just a tiny, obnoxious user of insignificance, a kid myself. Also, I don't agree on putting up such detailed descriptions about those things. That makes adults like it, make it very vaguely descripted and very cold. Then, the people who were looking over for those things will get disappointed and leave those articles alone. Of course, though it's a goal for people to change those kind of articles, they almost never change it for good, they just get excited. So, to my opinion, Kansan is almost quite right; but don't put up photographs or details about it. ♥ Belinda ♥ 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is righteous and pure? How come I never knew? :) Anyway, Bella, little children do look at those things. I think it is good- I'm one of the few people I know who can discuss just about any explicit thing or view pics or whatever without getting either aroused or dissolving into giggles, and that is because I first knew about <all this stuff> from medical encyclopedias, pictures and all. I would have been about seven. It didn't ruin my life, just made me more aware and mature. That said, though, I've had a pretty screwed life for a Christian. SS✞^(Kay) 04:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sweet, pretty Kay, but you're one-of-a-kind. You didn't purposefully look up "those stuff" in the medical encyclopedia, you just found out about it. I mean, of course, I don't "dissolve into giggles either", ugh, but it's all right if children see it. I am just trying to make my opinion clear: that wikipedia is okay to be uncensored, as long as they don't put in detailed facts or real photographs. ♥ Belinda ♥ 05:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think detailed facts, as long as they're facts, are okay. Like the article on ejaculation, right now... seriously? "A man gets a good feeling when he ejaculates" or something like that. It's cringe-worthy, but I don't see how I could reword it. That's not bland scientific fact, nor is it fiction though. And pictures: I'd like there (for the sake of my lil siblings who often shoulder-watch me) to be some kind of "NSFW click to see" warning. Would you agree with that, Belinda? SS✞^(Kay) 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. I still would prefer, pictures better than photographs, because sometimes my little sister shoulder-watch me, too, though I NEVER edit in those articles. And Ejaculating? Isn't that someone shouting? Dear me, if it's something annoying or disgusting please don't tell me or I might lose my lunch! But, well, even if you write "NSFW click to see", everybody would click of course(except for me). I still wish they could just put up diagrams instead of real people's photographs. ♥ Belinda ♥ 05:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, there is code that you can add to your monobook to make it not display images on certain pages. Lauryn (u • t • c) 05:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is? That might help... although I don't want them to be shoulder-watching anyway... :P SS✞^(Kay) 05:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sure, just add this: body.page-(page name) img {display: none;} to your monobook.css and replace "page name" with the name of the page you do not want images displayed on. For example: body.page-Muhammad img {display: none;}. I'll work on something to add to monobook.js when I have time. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 05:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks :) And Belinda: at least it gives them warning, and pause to think: Do I really need to see this? Ejaculating, btw, is quite an old-fashioned way to say shouting. Don't look it up. SS✞^(Kay) 05:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I won't look it up! I'm not so ridiculous, sweet Kay! :) But somebody, er, might, want to see those pictures, you know? I mean, not just click it without knowing, but seeing it on purpose. No wonder why there are so much articles such as those on the list... -_- I despise those kind of things. Shouldn't be on at all, to my opinion... But as I said before, just skip my touchy comments please! So, Kay, I still think you should put up a diagram instead of real photographs. ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are people who want to see them, and that's okay. Wikipedia is here as an information source, no? We cannot stop them from seeing what they want to see, so at least we can make sure it's from us, where we can control the clinicalness of the content. And diagrams are a good idea, but not always possible... you have to get an artist, for one, with a good idea of body structure, who's willing to draw it and release it as copyleft. It's great if they exist. SS✞^(Kay) 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeeder (NSFW, also don't click if you are offended by nudity) does fantastic drawings. Lauryn (u • t • c) 06:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thx, dear Lauryn! I was just about to say that I would appreciate it if somebody who was good at drawing could step up right now. Where's a wonderful artist when I need one? But now! Thankyou very much, Lauryn, now, if only some people would agree on them..... ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(e/c)Why should we be worrying about what certain people see on Wikipedia - they're doing it at their own risk. The question about this discussion is how we can flexibly change this project around this meet the needs of our readers, and to get their own opinion. Wikipedia isn't censored. How and why and what children seeing is not Wikipedia's concern - it's to be an informatve collection of articles on any possible subject just like an encyclopedia running on a wiki software. Not everyone looks at certain articles with topics about reproductive systems just for the pictures. Certain people find looking it up on the internet to learn more information about it is more comfortable for them than talking face to face with someone about it which may be embarrasing. Furthermore since Wikipedia isn't censored and is ad-free, people googling their topic and being linked to a Wikipedia article will be assured that it is virus-free and informative, rather than clicking on a link that is not trustworthy for the information and may put their computer at risk. Audiences who may be searching about these type of articles may be students researching for a science, PE assignment, adults not informed well about it or interested people. Nothing can be done to stop people from viewing things they know they shouldn't be seeing; if Wikipedia was censored, one would clearly try another website to get the information they want (seeing porn is easily accessible on the internet; little or no restrictions are there in place to prevent it). Protecting and filtering information for children is up to the people or parents providing the children internet access. One downside of censorship is that the targeted people may feel that their internet access has been restricted and watched over meaning they can't fully freely do what they want. Also, not the audience of Simple is mainly children; there are many people who have learning difficulties, newly learning English or whatnot who are reading it. The whole point is to cater Wikipedia to suit everyone, not to hinder it for some people (ie. children in this case). Please take in note you can't suit everyone's wants in your opinions. Nifky^{^} 06:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That's being rather unthinking of the other numerous people who get dirtied, but you're rather right in the logical way, Nifky. ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Lauryn--I appreciate the diagrams, but, they're rather too realistic. Couldn't you find something, er, more, un-realistic? Oh well, I'm just too picky I guess.... ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be blunt but an unrealistic diagram won't show the point of what's happening in the picture well. Diagrams are another way to officially show something without having to take a picture of someone (which may have issues with personality rights and privacy) and should be accurate as 'the real' thing. Speaking of which, this makes it possible to get what you are looking for without actually looking at what another person considers porn. Nifky^{^} 06:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Nifky, very clearly and sweetly said, not blunt at all.... Maybe you're right... But I don't know for sure. ♥ Belinda ♥ 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the stats show that some of most viewed articles are these sexuality-related ones, then it's clear that our target audience wants these articles. We should not delete them and write about Winne the Pooh or whatever else is suggested just because it's not "pure" or whatever the hell the idea behind this is. You don't like the page? Don't look at it. We have had this discussion before and absolutely nothing has ever changed, so I think continuing this discussion is pointless. We will never censor ourselves, nor should we. Either way (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! You don't need to tell me not to look at it, I don't by my self; but the important thing is, kind and smart Either Way, that--of course we don't need to make a page about Winnie the Pooh, or somewhat nonsense--but crazy ridiculous adults and teens are not our main target, they are children and people who do not know english. That's the main point. Swearwords and uncensored articles have no need to be put up for them. But of course, I don't mean to offend anybody; if the people here enjoy looking at those articles, look at them to your heart's content and please don't get angry or excited. Worriedly, ♥ Belinda ♥ 12:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it is not the children and people who do not know English viewing these articles? How do you know it is the "crazy ridiculous adults and teens" and not them? If these are our most view articles, then clearly someone out there in our target audience is viewing them. These "crazy ridiculous adults and teens" are likely viewing it at the English Wikipedia. So, these numbers suggest to me that our target audience wants to have these articles. Either way (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is, censoring is not NPOV. Some Muslims would have great concern over a picture of Muhammad being on Wikipedia - so it would need censored, even though it would not bother me. However, if I were strictly following Jewish mitzvah, one of the commandments is not to put any Jew to shame. So, although others may not have a problem with it, I would have to censor all articles that said anything negative about a Jew, true or not. African-Americans may be offended by Slavery related articles, so those will have to censored, although they may not have any problem with an article on the Black Panthers. People of Caucasian persuasion, however, may consider the Black Panthers article to be offensive, so it will have to go in the name of censorship. Pacifist will want all articles about war censored, even though they are very relevant to politics and countries today, and the war-hawks will want all the peace protests articles removed. Democrats will censor Republicans while Republicans will censor Democrats. In the end, every single article can be found to be offensive to someone. If we allow censorship to violate NPOV, we have no encyclopedia, period. There is no universal declaration of right and wrong, proper and improper, and as such, we cannot implement censorship without violating the cardinal rule of NPOV...</rant> (Note: I did try to keep the tone down here. This is something I feel strongly about, but I have tried to express my feelings in a calm and rational manner. There is no harm meant to anyone, opposing view or not. We are all friends here. :) ) -Avic enna sis @ 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very very well said. SS✞^(Kay) 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think the best conclusion on my side is to do as Kay smartly suggested: we should make "some kind of "NSFW click to see" warning." Whenever I want to improve articles about those things, I get disgusted and I can't go in because of all of the shocking pictures and I feel angry. Like, whenever I go into evolution pages I want to blank the whole page and write, "EVOLUTION IS BAD", and when I see pages about Christ I wish to write my own opinion - but of course, Wikipedia's policy is NPOV, and so Kay's thing is what I most likely agree with. Wouldn't it be alright if we just did like that? Then I would be free to edit those articles too. ♥ Belinda ♥ 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Wikipedia is uncensored. By putting the NSFW warning, we are censoring. Lauryn already gave you a suggestion on how you can block the images so you do not have to view them. If you don't want to take it, that's fine, but that's really your only option here. Either way (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but it's not only for myself, but other children and students who use wikipedia to read and find information. And "Wikipedia is uncensored"--that is exactly why we are discussing. :O Isn't it more fair, then being totally uncensored or wholly censored? It's sort of the middle of the line. Well, anyway, thanks for your reply, sweet Either Way, you are always so sensible... Don't care about me and please don't be annoyed by my insists. ♥ Belinda ♥ 04:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final matter is this (as it has always been); Wikipedia is not now, has never been and shall never be censored. This is the same condition that exists in all free encyclopedias, free libraries and free societies. If any editor or reader is offended by material that they see or read on this site, they have the freedom to simply not visit or edit here. The owner of this website (the Wikimedia Foundation) and the founder of this website (Jimmy Wales) as well as the members of this website have stated this, time and time and time again. Period! Under no conditions shall this be changed. fr33k man 05:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The NSFW would violate NPOV. As you mentioned - for a Catholic School Teacher, it would probably be "NSFW" to look up evolution, however, in a biology lab, it would be totally fine. Adding a warning label of any type will promote one group over another. As editors, we need to maintain NPOV and control our biases in articles. ENWP has a great essay about this, here, although it does use language that some would be offended at. (Some, but not all.) -Avic enna sis @ 11:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Wikipedia which solely focuses on kids. Its target audience also comprise those people who have English as their second/third language. Such people may want to look for such articles. Also, remember, "ejaculate" as "shout" is an archaic and uncommon use. If you want to know the meaning of the word, try Wiktionary. Censoring goes against NPOV, which is one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. If you have problems with this, just add the code Lauryn showed you. Remember, this is not WikiKids or Censorpedia. Adding warning templates is as bad as removing content one thinks inappropriate. If someone finds the content offensive, they are free to leave as Fr33k said. This is not a personal attack on anybody, but you can't control what people want to see. If we go on censoring the wiki, it would be a step backward. Censoring the article Evolution or deleting the article Sex is really stupid. Sorry for putting it so bluntly, but I find this absolutely inane. I may note that both the articles are on the list of articles all projects should have. If you have problems with an article, avoid it. Censoring such articles would deprive us of the opportunity to improve them to say, (V)GA standard. If people want to read such articles, let's improve them in my opinion. Censoring is a net negative for the wiki. Regards, Pmlineditor ∞ 15:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that Evolution is a VGA which is good because it shows that people work on important articles rather than going backward and censoring them. I think we should do the same for other articles rather than censoring them. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per Pmlineditor. that would be my point exactly. Couldn't of said it better myself. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With so much censorship going on at government hands right now in countries like China, I see that as all the more reason to celebrate the freedoms we have. Kansan (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Archive 29, Archive 42, Archive 50, Archive 52, Archive 55, Archive 63, Archive 65 ; these are the references I found (with the bigger censorship debates); searching the archives for "censorship" will reveal a few more, but which are only short, and probably not worth noting.

My personal opinion is that if it is not outright libel, information should not be suppressed. Articles need to express balanced views, and claims need to be founded, using references. For what i have seen most of the censorship debate revolves around articles on the "naked" human body, its parts, or on sexual practices or orientations that are seen as "abnormal" ('deviant'). It serves little if we take out the many articles we do have on sexual practices, unclothed body parts, etc. IIRC we even have an article on child pornography, or the sexual abuse of children. Not writing about those things, or only writing "truisms" (that are useless) about them will not make the problem go away that at some point in their live those people we are supposedly protecting by censoring away certain facets of reality will need to face these facets later in life. We are therefore not solving a problem, :we are only postponing it to a later date. So why are we discussing? --Eptalon (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, while we are at it, Nakedness needs references (contains several images of naked people; a few of them may be erotic, none is pornographic); Molotov Cocktail probably also needs a rewrite (Contains a description of a Molotov cocktail; based on the description it is probably possible to make one). Should we remove the image of God, given in the Ten Commandments article, as it violates the first (or second, depends a bit on numbering) commandment? - Even though it was painted by Michelangelo? --Eptalon (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do have concerns that there have been some attempts to undermine articles themselves. I have raised this point at Talk:Ejaculation, if anybody is interested. Kansan (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned that to some children, a warning would intice them to read on, rather than stop them from reading? Strongly oppose warnings for that reason, as well as censorship concerns. Also, support creation of censorship user warning. That's my two cents Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point Purple. The warning template probably would intice children more then make stop reading. I really don't think warning templates would do any good. If parents or children are offended by the page, leave. Its that simple. Nobody is forcing them to stay and read it. I must say this is the stupidest, insane discussion I've ever heard of. Its not wikipedia's problem if they get offended. After all, its an encyclopedia, and topics like sex are notable. I-on|^{I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ} 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship warning template

User:Purplebackpack89 has raised the suggestion of a censorship warning template, and I think that this is a good idea, worthy of branching off into a new discussion. Twinkle already has a built in warning for "removal of content or templates", but that is more for deleting an entire article randomly. I also suggest that we write a page that states that Wikipedia is not censored (kind of like WP:NOTCENSORED on En WP), and link to that page within the warning. Kansan (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does such a warning exist on EnWP? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not as far as I can see.~~ The reason I think that it may be more of an issue here is because of the notion that many have that this site is for children and should thus be censored. Kansan (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think they had it either, but I just found it at en:Template:Uw-notcensored1. It's actually a multi-level template. Obviously, since this was my idea, I support it. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People, its generally better and more effective to give personal messages rather than using templates. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally restrict my own usage of such a template to only using it toward new users, since I agree with the principle "Don't template the regulars" in most cases. Kansan (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Djsasso. What's so hard about writing, "Please don't censor," yourself? And it's not like it happens 100 times a day... American Eagle (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why we should have this template when he have WP:NOTCENSORED. Nifky^{^} 05:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:wi

We currently have hundreds of articles listed in Special:ShortPages that are soft redirects to Wiktionary. It makes sense to change those pages to use {{wi}} for those redirects. This could be done very easily with a carefully written bot, or possibly with AWB. Having a short notice, rather than "Soft redirect", would make it easier for people to realize they are changing from Wikipedia or Wiktionary and would prevent people from creating those articles. Also, we would be able to get rid of the first few hundred entries in Special:ShortPages, thus making it actually useful. This is what it looks like:

Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedia article for Simple talk/Archive 80 (search results).
You may want to read Simple English Wiktionary's entry on "simple talk/archive 80" instead.

Please do not replace this message with a dictionary definition of this word because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Remove this message and start an article only if an article can be written that isn't about the history and usage of the term.

Thoughts? EhJJ^TALK 23:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a good idea. I think it could be done with AWB... I'll just see. SS✞^(Kay) 03:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find 13 mainspace pages using either "transclusions of {{soft redirect}}" or "Category:Wikipedia:Soft redirects". So whatever AWB could find is now fixed. How do I find the rest? SS✞^(Kay) 05:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it doesn't move it from the top of Special:ShortPages. SS✞^(Kay) 05:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things: One, the list is not dynamically updated, so we cannot purge the page to see the new results. As you can see from the top: "The information on this page was last updated at 04:40, 26 March 2010." Second thig - On EN, it is common to add a message to a short page and then comment it out, so the reader would not see it, but it would keep it off the shortpage list. A common example is  which I added to the term article as seen here. Now, I am not sure what the page length or size needs to be to keep an article off Special:ShortPages, or what needs to be done to regerate the list. Perhaps a passing admin can answer those questions. :) Hope this info helps. -Avic enna sis @ 05:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! That's one question answered... now where are the rest of the pages needing doing? SS✞^(Kay) 06:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the week

Hello all,

just wanted to point out that for the last two weeks or so, we get two articles, per week. I think these should be prioritized, as they can give us visibiolity. I just wrote one of the two, please have a look, and simplify as needed. --Eptalon (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably dumb question: How does it give us visibility? SS✞^(Kay) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One article gets listed on all the wps that have a translation.--Eptalon (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, so you mean the brackety thing on RecentChanges next to the article you just made, will include simple on other wikis? SS✞^(Kay) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although someone has to add the link at meta:Translation of the week/2024 translations after the article is created. EhJJ^TALK 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the very lazy, links: Mars ocean theory Y (en) -- EhJJ^TALK 01:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Why would we translate Cairo Int. Book Fair when we don't even have a page Book Fair? Come to that, we don't even have a page Fair!! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of the point of this process, to get people to create the related pages as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]