Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 83

Most wanted again..

Hello all, we should really thinking about out most wanted list, before my replacements:

• Epistles were listed as most wanted, even though epistle existed. Now we have both of them (and a merge proposal)
• Categories of NT manuscripts is a (in my opinion rather pointless) list at ENWP, Authors of the Bible is a very similar one
• History of ... may be a rather lengthy article which will not add much to this WP.

Should we not replace these by better candidates? - We do have very limited resources. I think most authors are probably not interested in creating/reading about such articles. I assume the most wanted list is bot-created. We should therefore cut down on the references, and get the list re-created. Thoughts?--Eptalon (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If the articles shouldn't exist, remove them from the template. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Representation of Knowledge groups in the most-wanted list

Just another idea: We currently have 10 "most wanted" entries, and currently 6 top-level "knowledge groups"

• Increasing the number of entries from 10 to 12, gives us more flexibility (12 is a perfect number, because 1+2+3+6=12)
• We can feature all of the six knowledge groups with two articles/entries each
• There need not be a difference of more than one article/entry at any given time

This would prevent a situation like now, where one "subject area" is dominating. The more "variety" we have, the more likely we'll see the articles getting created. --Eptalon (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I see us as have a few options, based on the same core idea. The central idea would be to pick one or two articles from each of the Knowledge Groups to display as our Most Wanted articles. Here are the Knowledge Groups from our Main Page:

Applied sciences Architecture (building) • Communication • Electronics • Engineering • Farming • Health • Industry • Medicine • Transport • Weather People and social studies Anthropology (study of people) • Archaeology (history of civilization) • Geography • Education • History • Language • Philosophy (abstract ideas) • Psychology • Sociology • Teaching Daily life, art and culture Animation • Art • Book • Cooking • Custom • Culture • Dance • Family • Games • Gardening • Leisure (free time) • Movies and films • Music • Radio • Sports • Theater • Travel • Television

Natural sciences and maths Algebra • Astronomy (stars and space) • Biology (animals and plants) • Chemistry • Computer science • Earth science • Ecology • Geometry • Mathematics • Physics • Statistics • Zoology (study of animals) Government and law Copyright • Defense • Economics (trade and business) • Government • Human rights • Laws • Military • Politics • Trade Religions and beliefs Atheism • Bahá'í • Buddhism • Christianity • Esotericism • Hinduism • Islam • Jainism • Judaism • Mythology • Paganism • Sect • Sikhism • Taoism • Theology

Where we have options is how articles are picked.

1. We could have users manually chose articles from our Most Wanted list from each of the Knowledge Groups. This could be a bit tedious, and is open to bias (which may be good or bad).
2. We could have a bot scan through our Most Wanted list and pick articles from each Knowledge Group, based on how it is categorized on the English Wikipedia (assuming the article exists there, which it almost certainly would).
3. We ignore our Most Wanted list (since it's based on article wikilinks, which are artificially inflated through the use of Templates) and instead have a bot search through the most often looked at pages on the English Wikipedia, find out which ones do not exist here, and pick one or two from each knowledge group.

I think it's important for us to pick articles from various topics (and using our Knowledge Groups is one way of doing that). To actually pick the articles, I think this last option is probably the best, since it represents the articles that are actually most likely to be read, rather than the ones currently most linked to on our wiki. Thoughts? EhJJ^TALK 16:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. Personally, I'd go for number 3, because it seems to be the one that shows what will be truly most wanted. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 02:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Eptalon: 12 is not a perfect number. 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 6 ≠ 12 πr² (talk • changes) 16:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's true,sorry. Nevertheless, 10 has three divisors (1,2,5) and 12 has five (1,2,3,4,6) - 12 therefore gives us more "options"...--Eptalon (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

12 is the first abundant number, though, because: 1+2+3+4+6>12--Eptalon (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I support this. Can we do portals? πr² (talk • changes) 01:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think we should focus less on this sort of thing...the old way was a simple way that didn't require administration for the most part which is why it was ok to do it. But once we start pulling people away from actual editing to decide on these sorts of things, they become less valuable. I'd rather see the most wanted list disappear completely than to be made even more complex and time consumming. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We do again have a most-wanted list of all Bible-related entries, and as we have seen in the past, such pages rarely get created. If we extend the number of entries to twelve, and split, for example into three "subject areas", this leaves four entries for each subject area. Which four "religion-related" articles do you want, and what should the other eight articles be?--Eptalon (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean what articles should be placed in the most-wanted list? If so, does placing it there really prompt creation of the article? Generally, articles are created as the author has the interest/knowledge in the particular subject. Chenzw  Talk  03:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(<--) Frankly, I've always thought that each article listed in the knowledge groups on our main page should be VGAs. It's a bit of a sad situation that most have major issues. fr33kman 03:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All I was trying to say, is: we should vary the subjects a little, so that one subject area is not dominant. --Eptalon (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should. πr² (talk • changes) 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with varying them, so long as certain groups are represented. I just think that any articles we link to under the groups should be VGA or GA. fr33kman 21:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you two are talking about two different things. He is talking about the most wanted list. And taking articles that are not yet created from the various knowledge groups to put in the most wanted list. He isn't talking about what to put under the knowledge groups. Or maybe I am completely out to lunch. -DJSasso (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of the proposal

Hello all, here is the proposal again:

• Extend the "most wanted" articles listed in the Recent changes from 10 to 12 entries; 12 gives us more flexibility (2*6;3*4;4*3;6*2) of grouping, compared to 10 (2*5;5*2)
• See that the entries listed come from more "knowledge groups" (e.g 4 articles each, from 3 knowledge groups). The more varied we are, the more likely we will see the creation of such an article

But I think we currently do not have this problem.--Eptalon (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ec

Shouldn't it be changed to Template:Change Conflict instead, without the abbreviations? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That depends. I know at the top of pages it says "change" instead of "edit", but I have not gotten an edit conflict here. If the edit conflict says "edit conflict", then the template should match, although we may want to consider modifing the wording if that is the case. If it already says "change conflict" then we should make the template match. I will try to make an edit conflict later and see what the page says. -Avicennasis @ 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Results are in. The title of the window is called "Change conflict: PAGETITLE". The text is:

---

When you were editing the article, someone else also made changes. This is an edit conflict. There are two edit boxes below. Your changes are in the second box. The first box shows the article now (after the other person's edits). You should not ignore the new changes, but should add your edits into the first box.

Only the text in the first edit box will be saved when you press "Save page".

---

So, the text in the edit conflict page use both terms. Now, as a community, do we want to keep both in play, or do we prefer one over the other? -Avicennasis @ 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just unify it all to "change" (change conflict, change summary, change page, new changes, &c.)—and then change the template's name as well. :) Thank you Telecom for pointing this out, and Avicennais for your excellent help! —Clementina talk 06:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If all editors are in favor, I see no problem with changing it. The text for this conflict is found at MediaWiki:Explainconflict. -Avicennasis @ 07:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

---

When you were changing the article, someone else also made changes. This is an Change conflict. There are two text boxes below. Your changes are in the second box. The first box shows the article now (after the other person's changes). You should not ignore the new changes, but should add your changes into the first box.

Only the text in the first text box will be saved when you press "Save page".

---

-Avicennasis @ 07:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And it gets worse! Wikipedia:Edit conflict just links to Meta! Why do we not have a local, simplified version of this? -Avicennasis @ 07:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I copy and paste from MediaWiki:Explainconflict and go from there, simply simplifying it? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If the community agrees, I would be happy to make a wikified simple version of Wikipedia:Change conflict. :) Avicennasis, I like your suggested version of text, and if the community agrees, I think it would be much better. —Clementina talk 07:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do we get consensus? Here? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Telecom: No, I think we'll just wait to see what other editors (changers, I mean) here on Simple Talk. :) And as for copying the page over from Meta...well, I think we should use a lot of the information there, but write in a different style. —Clementina talk 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please keep {{ec}} as a redirect. It'd break so many talk pages to suddenly have it not exist, plus I find it a lot easier than typing out {{change conflict}}. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Although, I think we should also create a {{cc}} if we decide to go that route. :) -Avicennasis @ 05:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gadgets and vector

I switched back to Monobook for a little while to test something out, and found that all of a sudden most of the gadgets I'd enabled in my preferences suddenly worked. Are they just not compatible with Vector? (Some, like the live clock, work for me in other wikis.) How would I go about fixing them? (I would be happy with just scripts I could modify/import, but being able to have them work from Special:Preferences would be a benefit to other users, I'm sure.) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 10:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the gadgets do not work in Vector. I have to use monobook if any of my gadgets are to work. A lot of then would have to be re-written, and then added to the user's vector.js page. -Avicennasis @ 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Where is the source code for the gadgets located? I'd like to have a go at making vector versions for a few. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigation popups (API) = MediaWiki:Gadget-popups-API.js

Edittools = ?

Hot Cat = MediaWiki:Gadget-Hotcat.js

Twinkle = User:EhJJ/twinkle.js

Vandal Warner = MediaWiki:Gadget-vandalwarner.js

The rest are basic javascripts, AFAIK. I will hunt for that code later, when I have more time. :) -Avicennasis @ 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks so much! :) I think Twinkle is the only one of these that needs fixing... {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle should work fine if the compatibility code is added (see User:EhJJ/vector.jsUser:EhJJ/Gadget-vectorskin-thunks.js for the code I use to make it work for me). It seems to work almost perfectly (twinkle sometimes fails to reload a page after it's done, but otherwise works), so all we need to do is add it to User:EhJJ/twinkle.js. I can do that, but if it breaks, I won't be around to fix it. So, I'll do it tomorrow unless someone else wants to be bold. EhJJ^TALK 01:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... Then it may be a problem on my end. Half my scripts work (both here and enWP), and the other half consistently don't. (Twinkle, annoyingly, is in the half that doesn't.) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I must be unlucky, too. Twinkle doesn't fully work in Opera with monobook for me - getting it to work on vector in Opera seems impossible for me. Although, Opera is not a supported browser, so I guess I should be happy it works at all. :) -Avicennasis @ 04:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle constantly undergoes small changes on the English Wikipedia. Nearly a year ago, I created a copy that would work here with our deletion criteria. Since then, I'm sure the EN Twinkle has been improved. What I'll do is recreate a localized (Simple English) version of Twinkle from scratch, based on the current EN version. The new version should work well on Vector, since that is now a popular skin on EN. Until I have time to do that, I've added a the vectorskin-thunks compatibility code. Refresh your browser cache, and it should work in Vector. EhJJ^TALK 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I wasted half of a perfectly good afternoon, but I've gotten Twinkle completely up to date and compatible with Vector. Some people may need to restart their browsers to notice the change. Please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle if there are any future problems so that I or another capable user will be able to fix them. Cheers, EhJJ^TALK 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much! {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay! --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 01:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Only one problem: the QD criteria does not list "hoax." It is also more complex. πr² (talk • changes) 02:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If Twinkle is not working correctly for you, it is likely that you simply need to refresh your browser's cache (click Ctrl+F5 or Ctrl+R, depending on the browser). If that doesn't help, try closing and restarting your web browser. The code for a while was the English Wikipedia Twinkle code, which is more complex and does not list hoax. I fixed it a few minutes later, but it's possible that your browser was started at that time, so you have the old code stored in the browser cache. EhJJ^TALK 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding DYKs, a short essay I wrote

I would have posted it there, but there doesn't seem to be a general, all purpose talk page for DYKs themselves. If you're involved in the DYK process (which has really slowed down in the last month, unfortunately), please check out User:Kansan/On readability scores. Kansan (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place, but let me say that I am opposed to the idea of "readability score", as it is currently used here:

• The tests which rate articles for readability basically rely on the number of words per sentences, and on the length of words (in terms of syllables or letters). To my knowledge, they do not take into account any grammatical structure, nor any semantic information.
• For this reason: Simply splitting sentences and replacing longer words by shorter ones will improve the score. The readability/ease of understanding will not necessarily benefit, though.

Can we therefore do away with the bean-counting methods? - Either we get a form where we can really measure "understanding", or we do away with it. Really measuring it would imply some statistical measure. "50% of the target group" will understand the article, or some such.--Eptalon (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with Kansan's essay in the talk page for it, and I agree that there is an overemphasis on use of a flawed readability tool. One of the main problems is that it counts proper nouns and linked wiktionary words as complex, when they're really not. We either need a better readability tool, or to stop using it Purplebackpack89 23:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC) USA tied the limeys!

Criteria for lowering the complexity of a word:

• It is inside of a link to Wiktionary
• It is explained in parentheses (those round things)
• The word is the title of the page

I also think that there should be a {{do not count in readability|Awordthatiscomplex}}. It would ignore the word when computing the readability. For example, it could be used for "instruction" in Machine code. πr² (talk • changes) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would add to that:

• It is inside of a link to Wikipedia
• Many proper nouns. Take, for example, the sentence: "George Washington led his soldiers over a hill". Does it make sense for George Washington to be complex in that sentence, even if he isn't linked? Proper nouns are always counted, even though in most cases even an English novice could discern their meaning (In many cases, the point of the sentence is to explain the proper noun). problem is that the readability tool has so many quirks. We honestly would be better served if somebody had her little sister/brother read it and see if he/she understood it. Purplebackpack89 04:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer the services of my little brother. (He spends all his time reading paper encyclopedias anyway.) {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kansan's essay is very reasonable indeed: I've been thinking a lot recently along the same lines, though I probably couldn't have written such a good essay about it. :) I agree that most proper nouns shouldn't be counted as complex if they're linked on their first usage. Foreign words shouldn't be counted as complex either if they're linked or explained (for example, hanbok). And some of the "complex" words aren't really that complex (for example: too, afraid, many, &c.). I like PiR's idea of a template to fix some of the problems we're discussing, though I think it would be better if it could be shorter (maybe something like Template:uncomplex). There's just one problem, though: people can disagree about what's "complex" and what's not, and often the readability tool can serve as a standard (though frequently an incorrect one). This might make things a little confusing at first. And as for someone's little brother or sister...I think Dewflower might be helpful. —Clementina talk 07:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "new" readability tool should not count words on WP:LIST and/or wikt:Wiktionary:BNC_spoken_freq_03. Setting up the "uncomplex" template would not require a lot of work. There may be disputes over what is complex, but someone neutral can decide. They would have to follow a guideline. πr² 14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian flag

I want to add File:Flag of Bulgaria (1967).png (png?, or svg?, see also Template:Country data Bulgaria) to 1970 FIFA World Cup. But it is not displayed. Would you revise it? --Nameless User (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The icon template only works with SVG, not PNG files. So if there's a SVG version of it, you will need to use that. Otherwise, nothing will be able to be displayed. Either way (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I displayed it without using Template:flagicon. Thanks. --Nameless User (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your tireless work. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

*.patheon.org

At enwiki, there are links to this site being removed. Do we do the same? (It's at a AN discussion there). OpenTheWindows, please. 17:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't at least not without knowing the reasons, and without knowing if we are affected at all...--Eptalon (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We do the same only if the same reason applies here and we agree to do the same. As Eptalon said, we need to know the reason and whether we are affected. EhJJ^TALK 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Link en:WP:AN#Unreliable source alert: "Encyclopedia Mythica" (pantheon.org). EhJJ^TALK 18:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at enWP, removing said links seems prudent. Kansan (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So, summary of the discussion is that pantheon.org is not a reliable source, but that it is frequently cited on the English and Simple English Wikipedia (see Special:LinkSearch/*.pantheon.org). In short, the content should be checked and fixed, and the links should be removed. Simply removing the links doesn't fix the larger issue of having incorrect info all over the wiki. And deleting the links with a bot will make it hard to find where this misinformation was added. EhJJ^TALK 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have struck through my previous comment so as to avoid endorsing the idea, because you are right, simply removing the links (i.e. with a bot) would compound the problem. Kansan (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Yesterday, I copied the article on Pandora from enwp. I started simplifying, but could use some help. I think for most of the other articles on Greek mythology creatures, we should probably go a similar route. --Eptalon (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan stubs

Should they be deleted? Put on a list? πr² (talk • changes) 17:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They aren't useful, because they aren't notable (or they don't say anything about it), and they are extra-short. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 17:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a "delete" or a "list"? πr² (talk • changes) 17:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

!vote below, please. πr² (talk • changes) 17:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, a vote isn't necessary, they aren't notable, they are deleted. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 17:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You can either tag them for QD or have a RfD on the Category page (for all pages in that category). This is the wrong place to have a RfD discussion. EhJJ^TALK 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to RfD the pages. πr² (talk • changes) 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(<-) The very basic problem with these is that to my knowledge there is currently one editor, using perhaps three different IP ranges, who add Pakistan-related information. This editor has been known to push (a rather pro-Pakistan) point of view. While the XY is a tehsil in AB district articles are comparable to the X is a city in Y, US, the notability of the tehsils is much harder to verify. Personally, I think a vote would be wrong, in the sense that you do not need to vote on the notability of a geographic location. You do not delete the article on Detroit, based on the fact that of the five who voted, three did not know where it was. --Eptalon (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than talk about the notability of the location itself, when evaluating an article we should see whether the article mentions why or how the place is notable (eg. XX is a city in YY (a country of which notability has been established), with a population of 10,000,000, making it the largest city in YY.). Chenzw  Talk  03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well put! What is notable is often an opinion, but our test for QD is whether or not the article explains WHY/HOW the topic is notable. fr33kman 03:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK that the article on Detroit does not state its population? - Perhaps it isn't notable, after all... :) --Eptalon (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they're all being deleted. πr² (talk • changes) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The specific ones I'm deleting don't affirm notability. Kansan (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any about a city I wouldn't be speedying....that would be POV...because cities are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The creator of many of them is 92.2.204.70/16. If you have the IP range gadget, see http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=92.2.204.70%2F16&namespace=&year=&month=-1. πr² (talk • changes) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(<-) Let me perhaps re-iterate: Once the "content" is there, it is irrelevant who created it (supposing it is balanced, and meets a few other criteria). Since I do not know much about Pakistan, I can perhaps name five "cities" there. To me as an European, for a place to be a city, there have to be a few criteria:

• In the Middle Ages, cities were given special rights by nobility. This was usually independent of population. The smallest such city I know has a population of 70, today.
• Later on, states defined a city through a minimum population, of usually 10.000 people
• Even though the place meets neither of the two criteria above, it might be notable for something else. As an example: Few people talk about Verdun, which has been settled (and a city) since Roman times, most talk about it because of one of the bloodiest battles of the First World War, about 300.000 people died, about 500.000 were wounded. Today, about 20.000 people live in Verdun.

I found out neither is true for "US cities". Walking into the valley, and up the hill, there is a settlement, where five families live. This settlement has a name, and it might be a good spot to ask the people there, because during summer, they make a good cheese. I am a local, so I might know all this. Even though this settlement might have a name, and be part of some hamlet or village, does not mean that the place is notable. It is much the same with the "cities" in some US state, or the tehsils in Pakistan: What does it serve us to have a "full list", if we don't have the top 10 or 15 cities of the respective country? -The big question I see is one of focus: What should our priorities be? --Eptalon (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, I compiled a list of the 600 American cities and 100 Canadian cities that we "should" have. There are very few non-stub articles on any city outside of that list, and there are many cities on the list that don't have articles or have stubs. I personally would not oppose any small-settlement stubs that don't make the list being deleted (Alaska and Idaho are terrible on this point), but in that case, they should NEVER be salted and anyone who wants to come around to make full articles of them should be allowed to. I feel the same way about Pakistan--compile a list of 100-200 large or significant cities, keep those articles, and do whatever with the remaining ones Purplebackpack89 04:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The title of 'city' in England has long been regulated, by monarch (by charter) and church (cathedral, bishop). Now they are designated by Parliament at the direction of government. A rough guide is: if it's got a cathedral, it's a city. Size has always been a most important criterion. No town (as opposed to city) should be in Simple unless it is shown to be genuinely notable on its own account. Admittedly, we have difficulties in countries which do not have the concept of 'city', and which have huge populations. Common-sense might come into play... Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

Is linking to non-WMF wikis allowed?[1] πr² 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not inline as a type of intrawiki link. In fact only links to simplewiki articles would be acceptable for that example. fr33kman 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Help:Tables

Help:Tables (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
has been tagged as complex. I would be interested in rewriting (and expanding) it, but just how simple must it be? Can I assume that help pages are just used by editors who have a understanding of English above the basic level?--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything on the wiki including help pages should be in simple english. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everybody, but as I speak English as a first language, if I were looking for help with tables I would go to en:Help:Table, not to the page on simple. People who are not native to English, would probably be coming here to read about them. Because of this, as Djsasso said, all pages, including help pages, should be in Simple English.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Redirectedfrom

Why is this message "deleted?" :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because that page no longer does what it used to do. The Mediawiki code changed not requiring it any longer. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What did it "used to do"? Because when I click on WP:Village Pump, I can still clearly see the redirect notice in gray at the top of the page under that title Wikipedia:Simple talk. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it used to provide that text. With new updates, the text is automatic from redirects, making the mediawiki page redundant and obsolete. -Avicennasis @ 08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so does that mean there's another Mediawiki message coming from the redirects themselves that's also redundant? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It used to provide the message. Now that message is done automatically through the code of Mediawiki. There is no redundancy, it comes from a single place. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

no self blocks

I recently came across this. While it is a good faith attempt at enforcing wikibreaks, we shouldn't be entertaining those types of block requests (unless compromised account or some other situation that hasn't been thought of). Wikipedia is not therapy (as the page points out), and if you can't stay away, then maybe the block reason shouldn't be user request but something else. Community consensus supported not blocking BG7 because of a user request over a year ago, but I'd like to add this officially to policy. Since threads often have a habit of dying off, after a week, I'll have an uninvolved 'crat look at this and make a decision. Note: I'm sure there will be a few more exceptions to the rule, but I expect admins to use common sense when applying this. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I firmly disagree! Basically because it puts restrictions on an admins right to place blocks. Admins have very wide latitude to make blocks for the good of the community and its users. This "service" exists on enwiki already, and it has been used here in the past also. There are times when a user really wants to take a break for both their and the community's benefit. Sometimes they are not able to stop themselves coming back. Whilst the wikibreak enforcer is great, it has limits. A user can beg and pester an admin to remove it for them. A self-block, however, is a contract between the requester and the granter. This means (because it is a block) that another admin would not get involved and undo the block. The requester would simply have to wait until the block runs its course. Please read my page and review my standards for self-blocks. I am against anything that restricts my right to block. fr33kman 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Fr33kman. These are not abusive blocks, and are somewhat common elsewhere. This is a good example on ENWP. I see no harm in this. If anything, policy should be to not request a self-block be lifted prior to the expiration date. This would stop users from bugging admins if they change their minds. -Avicennasis @ 01:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with what Fr33kman and Avicennasis said. :) I could think of many instances when it could be both necessary and helpful to Wikipedia without inflicting harm to it. —Clementina talk 10:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer we didn't do it. There are other methods to do this such as the wikibreak enforcer. Doing these sort of blocks is just asking for drama and issues. And as griffen points out, the community was pretty strongly against this last time it came up. Yes I realize consensus can change. A block is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Some of the things listed on that page are punitive. If the user wants to come back and we don't let him until the block has run out then we are punishing him not preventing anything. This completely goes against policy. Especially the last line on that page, that is flagrantly punishing someone and not preventing anything. If they were a good non-vandal and then you extend to indefinite because they created another good faith account which would be completely allowed since they weren't blocked for violating a policy, then that would be a clear abuse of blocking tools because you were punishing them for violating a personal contract as opposed to breaking a wiki policy. (ie you are allowed to have two accounts as long as they aren't doing anything to harm the wiki). We aren't here to cure people of addictions. They are on their own for that. And as mentioned they can use the wikibreak enforcer if they feel the need to "block" themselves. I will note that since I have the right to undo any block I feel is done incorrectly, I will use it if I see any of these blocks done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, DJSasso does make a reasonable point. I do agree that blocking a good faith user indefinitely just because the user creates another account to come back might be a little drastic. Maybe the new account could be blocked as well until the originally proposed time of the block expires? —Clementina talk 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) Blocks are not to be used for cool down periods or wikibreaks. That is not what the block tool is meant for. Razorflame 12:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes I forgot about that line in the policy, that it is not to be used for cool down periods. That is also very valid. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true that cool-down blocks cannot be made, but it is not applicable to this situation. Cool-down blocks are blocks that are made during a dispute between multiple users, for the purpose of preventing the dispute from flaring up further. Currently, the procedure is to follow EN policy, which says that requests for self-requested blocks are typically refused, but not disallowed. Therefore, it is fine for such blocks to exist, unless the community thinks otherwise. However, I do agree that some of the points on Fr33kman's page are unacceptable, especially the 4th and last point. Chenzw  Talk  12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually copied the concept and page from enwiki. I'm fully open to removing those two points entirely. fr33kman 13:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as those are removed and its understood that you will only do this in extreme circumstances where other options have not worked for the person. I can probably somewhat get on board. But I would rather this be a very last resort. In other words they tried the wikibreak enforcer and then went and "cheated" on it or something. Its not up to us to be therapy enforcers which is basically what this is. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed those, because I do agree they are too harsh. fr33kman 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am in nonsupport of the self blocks. The block tool should be restricted to set circumstances and used with great care. The block tool has much risk and great consequence when used for any reason other than to stop/pause active and ongoing disruption. Any other use is above the sphere of the block tool and would be misuse. I'd undo any block that does not meet with our blocking policy, and unfortunately, that may include self blocks. Let us not set a standard here. Respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• What harm have self-blocks caused in the past, besides triggering disputes regarding their validity? We don't need to encourage blocking yourself, but I see no reason to disallow it either. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs (aka Pending Changes)

If it works well on enwp, are we going to adopt it? I don't think we have much use for Level 2 flagged protection, but I think for this wiki Level 1 would serve excellently as an alternative to semi-protection altogether. Because it is so flexible in allowing IP edits, but not letting vandalism show up straight away, it would encourage more editing of this wiki. Also, reviewing it would just be an easy extension of RC patrol, which many of us do anyway. Any malicious IP vandalises Justin Bieber or something, just nuke with no change to the reader. What do you think? Is it too much extra work? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 10:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea as an alternative to semi-protection. To keep it simple, I suggest grouping the "reviewer" right with rollback or sysop. Griffinofwales (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With rollback please. (I was originally thinking autoconfirmed, but that might cause some issues.) Sysop would restrict it a tad too much. I'm unbiased, of course... {{Sonia|talk|en}} 11:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is there a central interface to show us how many pending revisions need to be approved. I want to be assured that anons can edit and those changes show *very quickly* with little delay to the editor. Jon@talk:~$ 12:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Special:OldReviewedPages. Any pending revisions also show up in bright orange and bold on RC. If they're in your watchlist, you also get a red box at the top of RC and your watchlist. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that this Wikipedia is too small for the feature to be of use. The little vandalism we get can be handled adequately with the "rollback" and semi-protection (with timeout). --Eptalon (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What is FlaggedRevs? πr² 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Very briefly: Changes made by unconfirmed and IP editors need to be reviewed by "reviewer". Until this is done, IP editors see the "last-known good" revision of the article. Named (autoconfirmed) editors can select which version they want, in their profile.--Eptalon (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't even get a change every minute. We are not in drastic need of FlaggedRevs. I guess it might help, but not much. πr² 15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking through our protection log, I do not see a lot of protection actions that are done. To add reviewing into this would just add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Just use the protection tool, and if an IP wants to edit while it's protected, they can post a request on the talk page of the article. Either way (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it would be easier to let IPs edit and review them than to review {{editsemiprotected}} requests, both for them and for us. It is more newbie-friendly than protection. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we do end up with it, I think it should be given out by sysops. πr² 15:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the opinions above, and reviewing the feature, I don't think this is needed for our wiki. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

+me. Not needed, we have rollbackers to do the job instead. OpenTheWindows, please. 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of vandalism is missed by the CVN team. From what I understand, this gives IPs more freedom, with little cost to us, since it is only used on specific pages. If the reviewers are sysops-only, all the better, as we can then guarantee the quality of the revisions. Not sure why we shouldn't adopt it. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I heavily support the use of this feature. Even being a small wiki, a lot of IP related vandalism is missed, some of which sticks around a long time. Kansan (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I support this weakly. (because of this) πr² 22:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For me, I do not believe that our rather small wiki will need such a thing as Flaggedrevs now or in the near future. Perhaps when we've waited a few years for the community to grow, then we can talk about it... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the implementation of FlaggedRevs/Pending Changes. This system is very useful and clearly will help improving our articles, and will reduce the vandalism considerably. I say yes. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 02:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong support (after testing it out) πr² 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would support using Flagged revs on simple, if it would only be used on certain pages. I have used it on another wiki, and I am pleased with the improvement of article quality, but have found it near impossible to review each revision. If only certain pages needed to be reviewed, it would be much easier, and the wiki would benefit.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, since pretty much every single edit here gets looked at since our RC moves so slow. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Maybe that was the case, but I don't think so anymore. Griffinofwales often looks through the last 24 hours of IP edits, and is reverting many many edits that were missed and have been up for up to a full day. We do miss edits. Flagged revs would pretty much eliminate that.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think protecting only certain pages is fine. It's like semi-semi-protection, in a sense, a good step between. If anyone else wants to test it out before deciding, let me know- I really would like to see this implemented here. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It will not reduce vandalism just by making it invisible from the outside world. Too much bureaucracy and headache, I am against this idea. Chenzw  Talk  01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that is sort of the point Gordon. There are people (such as griffen) who go through the last day or two days of edits every couple days and then catch them. And things will still slip by because people will get tired of the extra work required in reviewing the pages and will just start doing it without actually looking. So we will be no better off. -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...I sure hope that we're not lazy enough to deliberately review something without at least glancing at the diff between the revisions. There's quite a difference between just not seeing vandalism, and hitting the review button. The former is no one's responsibility. The latter is quite clearly the reviewer's responsibility. Also, unless a large number of pages are flag protected, it's not going to be an issue coping with review backlogs (as reviewing shows up quite clearly on RC and doesn't take very long). {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to dates

Lately, in my copyedits, I have been removing links to dates. For example, this revision. However, I'm been seeing that Nameless User (talk · contribs) has been undoing some of my removals. I just want to confirm that I am doing this correctly. Codedon (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We do have several options, and IIRC do not link dates, this is for several reasons:

• If you only link the date, there will be very many dates with only one entry, which looks bad,imo
• Linking the year will have the same issue, plus the added one of distinguishing between a year, and a "number"

In short, I think we should probably not link dates.--Eptalon (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was extensively discussed on enWP, and voted on. The result was a policy of not linking dates except in exceptional cases. Second, they decided on a policy of date order: 17 April 1804 is the way. We should follow these policies. Mindless linking does not improve the credibility of an encyclopedia, and consistency of format is also a good aim. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Watchlist

Why do we not have a Wikipedia page on Special:Watchlist? We need instructions on how to view the watchlist (e.g. where the watch tab is located, how to get to the "my watchlist" button at the top-right corner of every Wikipedia page...); how to edit the watchlist (e.g. where Special:Watchlist/edit and Special:Watchlist/raw, etc.); and general uses of the Watchlist (even the English Wikipedia has a page on watchlisting). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you create one? You're a bit newer to editing than a lot of us are, and so you have the ability to write in a way that new users can understand. Sometimes we lose that over time. You're more likely to know what they need in the information, because you're in the place of being experienced enough to know what you're doing, but new enough to remember when you didn't. Regards, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm back for now

Hey, so I took a break but have decided since that I want to help out here, but start anew. Well, see you around. obentomusubi 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A very merry welcome back!! :) fr33kman 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, good sir! obentomusubi 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Main page redesign?

Hmm, I could work on redesigning the Main Page to resemble the new Vector skin if you guys want. obentomusubi 19:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like ideas, suggestions, feedback of any sort, ideally on my talk page or here. obentomusubi 19:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it, as long as the Vector skin doesn't appear on any other pages. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The main page needs a redesign, imo. To match vector would be cool- it's not a half bad colour scheme. I think a little more sans-serif, because it looks more modern and easy to read for learners. I like serif fonts, but I think the main page would look better without them. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi TeleComNasSprVen, it won't appear on any other pages. The main page's design will only resemble the Vector skin, but other than that the encyclopedia will not be affected. :) obentomusubi 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll get started on a first draft. Feel free to edit it. It will be at my sandbox. obentomusubi 02:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As TOM is aware, I've hated the layout of the main page for AGES! It's long past due for a redesign! I know others (I could name them by heart) will disagree, but perhaps we can come to a compromise this time? fr33kman 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you

Thank you everyone who participated in my RFA, which passed with 15 supports and eight opposes. The supports were most kind, and I felt each with gratitude: most of the opposes were almost equally kind, and just as reasonable and interesting: I sincerely thank all. I especially want to thank dear Fr33kman, who had the trust in me to nominate me, and Peterdownunder, who adopted me and taught me so very much! I firmly promise not to abuse the trust given to me and to do my best to prove that I am not ungrateful for it. With warm gratitude, —Clementina talk 13:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Referencing articles

I've just started working on Macbeth, and I have a question. Can I cite it to itself? Most of the plot doesn't have any other sources. How would I cite it if I did so? Would each sentence have to have inline citations to a specific line in the play, or is it less rigid? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucratic discretion

The communities input is requested here regarding what is meant by bureaucratic discretion. fr33kman 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Short articles

I have noticed that many articles in Simple English Wikipedia is too short. I think it is because many people are afraid of writing too complex stuff.

Hydriz (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the main reason. πr² 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? How do you know? fr33kman 18:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see many articles that are registered as simple(stubs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydriz (talk • contribs)

Fr33kman was asking PiR, not you; in any case, what do you wish us do about it? We have a Stub cup on, to improve stubs (that I must admit, I have been rather lazy about). If you see stubs about something you know about, feel free to improve them. This page is always here if you need help with formatting, or if you'd rather work with somebody else. (I'm open to working with you, if you like, on something Singapore-related.) Regards, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am now currently working on all Singapore-related articles. But I only have little information for some of the articles. But I am trying my best. Lets work to remove stubs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydriz (talk • contribs) —Comment without a date added on Hydriz

Most articles on Simple should be shorter than the corresponding article in enWP. This is partly to do with the audience not needing the same level of detail. Sheer quantity of prose is by itself a factor for any reader, especially any having problems with reading skills and/or comprehension. Think of what you would say to the average 10-year-old if they asked "What is... ?"

I have come across many stubs that say all that's needed on the topic in question. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

What exactly is the purpose of this page? At the top, it claims that the page is to "ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia". However, lately I've been seeing other uses of this page, including thankspam, social talk, a discussion about self-blocks that is more suited to be brought up at WP:AN, and storage of stray links just to name a few. If these uses are acceptable, I ask that they be integrated into the box at the top. If not, such misuse should cease. Thanks, Codedon (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody has had an issue until now. I use it for general announcements and questions. I'm not inclined to correct users for such a small thing, so if you want to reword the header, I reckon that is ok. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse? You are very new here, but the regular editors have been using this page for various things now for ages now. It does not require changing anything. Some things belong here, others not. Simple Talk is the general location people use to alert people to all sorts of things, and yes ask questions etc. Many other pages don't get read very often and so things either don't get done or else get ignored or not seen. We are not as formal as enwiki, where every page has a clear purpose and straying from it may get a person blocked or warned. There is no need to change either the box at the top or how the page is used. It's been like this for years. fr33kman 22:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Years? There's only been 83 archives on this page alone... compared to the ones on enWiki, that is... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Eighty-three archives which date back to 2003. Hence, years. Either way (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah the archives go back to 2003....so yes years. -DJSasso (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Simple Talk is exactly what its name says. Its a place to talk about Simple wiki. We use it for community discussions and for answering questions.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the box at the top is for new editors to know they can ask questions here. fr33kman 22:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #Names, the discussion was here, but another editor moved it to my talk page. I don't see any misuse of this page. πr² 23:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is basically the "General Forum" of the wiki. Anything wiki related goes on here. AN board is for specific incidents such as what to do with a specific user who is missbehaving. As has been mentioned the top box is for new users. The box at the top is just a pointer to new editors that this is the best place to ask a question. -DJSasso (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have updated the header to reflect such, although if anyone can word it better, please feel free. :) -Avicennasis @ 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't really needed as it's never come up before but w/e. fr33kman 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It basically serves the function of a village pump. I don't see any reason or need for a change. Kansan (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo

Should we change the logo (at the top-left corner of the screen) to look like the one on the English Wikipedia? There are significant differences between the two: [2] vs. [3] :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think so. obentomusubi 19:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There was already a discussion. The conclusion was to wait. Are we ready to decide now? πr² 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a reference, the logo in question is this one. obentomusubi 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would rather have "Simple English Wikipedia" below the globe. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Me too, but a new font might be nice. It is the 21st century afterall, lol :) fr33kman 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If somebody can create a logo that's unique but follows the new overhaul, I'd support it 100%. obentomusubi 20:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So, with just a new font, or also new design and placement altogether? Any recommendations for fonts? I might mess around with it in the computer lab and see what I can do. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Shadowcard Gothic"? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

....no. It has to be a reasonable professional looking font. I think we'll stick with serif, and preferably non-copyrighted ones. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
First of all, I disagree with the idea of changing the font; but if it has to be done, please choose one that is both free (choosing a pay-only font such as Calibri will leave many users seeing A A A A A A wherever it is used as well as go against the spirit of a free encyclopedia) and easy to read. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It will only be used for the logo (as in the floating sphere filled with puzzle pieces to the upper left corner of the screen) not an entire Wikipedia page. Here's Calibri and Shadowcard Gothic as examples. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that and know what the logo (that is on every page) is. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I usually like new changes to things, but like Lauryn, I don't think it's really necessary to change the font of the logo right now. I think I like the present font as it is better than Calibri or Showcard Gothic. :) It looks more professional and neat. —Clementina talk 03:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See, TeleCom, shadowcard gothic only shows up when I'm running Windows, as I am now. And it's also a very aggressive font. We don't want that. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... Yeah, you're right. How about Arial? Oh wait, this is Arial. I know, Book Antiqua. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Note, the font(s) has to easily available and common in operating systems. Fonts that are limited in availability/not pre-installed on the operating system will just render as the default font in the browser. Note there's not only Windows used by editors on this project; there's Linux and Macs as well. Personally I prefer the fonts we already have. Nifky^{^} 13:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That above comment was just for text in general on pages... If we are looking to change the font of the logo we should make it uniformly similarly looking to other projects as well. This is kind of like the monobook skin, a project can't suddenly have a different background colour to it making it different from other projects. IIRC the enwiki's font in the logo was only changed because it rendered better than the italics in browsers and that it was easier to read. Seeing many people access that project it was a reasonable change. I'm not sure if this is necessary here. We recently had a main page redesign. Nifky^{^} 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Emergency deflagging

Please see Wikipedia:Emergency deflagging. I'm wondering if it makes sense to formalize a policy about this??? fr33kman 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

One would think this falls into discression. Deflag and then immediately post a removal request. And if its blatant like complete case of going rogue like vandalizing 1000 pages or deleting everything then there is probably no need to do the request and to just let things stand. As you've said. We promote because we trust. That being said...crats are pretty much promoted just based on time now and not so much trust. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That page as written is poor, IMO. I totally agree with the spirit of it, de-sysoping anyone performing clearcut damage, however I believe the wording and structure need help. On a sidenote, I created the redirect. :p -Avicennasis @ 21:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's also time to review the bureaucrat promotion criteria? Chenzw  Talk  02:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be reviewed ;) Yottie ^=talk= 10:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it! :) fr33kman 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Is there any difference between the references used in the English Wikipedia and this Simple English Wikipedia? If not, is it possible to copy the references from there to here, and simply reword the English Wikipedia? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I haven't had any trouble with the references in my userspace draft, much of which was copied from the English Wikipedia. Codedon (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  (Now I'm using ec?) Oh, and do we have a file for guidelines about refs, inline ones and so forth? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Ref. Codedon (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that page is really short. In any case, I'll try to fix it up. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

References here are no different to those used at enwiki. All articles should be fully referenced, however most aren't referenced properly, and many aren't referenced at all. Most of the templates for citing are here: well the most common ones in any case. Personally, I'd like to see a real community push for adding proper citations to reliable sources. fr33kman 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with that last thought. A rider would be: we don't particularly want to end up with a huge number of sources (enWP articles often have 100+). A few good, really reliable sources are often adequate, rather than a massive trawl of iffy web-sites. Any startling claim which might be challenged ("No, that can't be true!!") is worth a ref. Apart from that, some refs to acknowledged authorities or reviews of the field may be all that's needed. This is because our pages are usually shorter and less detailed than correspondong enWP articles.
Examples: Evolution 69 refs; Ramesses II 11 refs; Hittite 1 ref (not counting repeats. Obviously, Evolution gets more, partly because of its importance and length, and partly because it has always been challenged by some.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Qui system

Help! I don't know why the system isn't working. So far I've copied this and this over to my versions. I've even copied the template and documentation subpage for this over to the simple Wiki, but even that isn't helping. Can anybody help? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seemed to not display it for ten minutes for some reason. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't update for you personally until you update your cache. -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that, after I had to close my browser four times until it worked. Wait, how do you update your cache? Sorry, I don't understand that Wikilanguage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What browser do you use? If you use Firefox, there is a "clear cache" somewhere. If you use Safari, just click the "reload" button while holding "shift." πr² 02:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

en:WP:BYC πr² 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Firefox is exactly the same in that respect then. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

IE 7. The same one I used to view Sonia's userpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Ec

I'm not sure that I'm doing this correctly, but I've opened up an informal poll on the talk page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see talk page comments. fr33kman 21:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See further discussion on that page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good afternoon all. How is everyone? :) 194.81.124.196 (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A very warm welcome back! I hope this means you will come back? :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 13:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy is back? I thought he scrambled his password! :) πr² 15:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Kennedy account's password was scrambled, but the edit was made from an IP. Hopefully you plan to hang around Kennedy!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluegoblin7&diff=prev&oldid=2022312 πr² 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That would explain why he didn't log in then.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• There is no way to verify this is Kennedy. Just a point of information. Jon@talk:~$ 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the changes.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's his IP address. Nice to see you "back". Goblin 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

As Jon said, it is impossible to determine if this is Kennedy. Hopefully it is, but it's impossible to verify. fr33kman 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What you all dont know is that ive had a sock on here for months and no-ones noticed. I'd CU your admins if I were you :D 82.40.44.71 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Again posted from an IP, 82.40.44.71 (talk · contribs), no proof this is Kennedy! - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to hide it, i post then alter my post with my old sig... I'll prove my doppelgangers soon. 82.40.44.71 (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not possible. The only way would be to log in as Kennedy and prove it. Since his password was scrambled (by his/your own admission) this is not happening. fr33kman 22:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're not, just pointing things out :) This is a different IP address to the first post here - from 194.81.124.196 (talk · contribs). That IP was linked to Kennedy through past contribs, no edits from this one before though. - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe CUing admins is a good idea, as an aside. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I'll need to start using Tor and make all my socks IP Block Exempt... I mean, what socks? EhJJ^TALK 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Very good.. :P - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is Kennedy, and he does have an admin account, why would he suggest getting that proved? I can't see why myself, but there again, I also see no harm in CU-ing admins (don't object myself), and no harm would be done. - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that, as a new admin, I don't really feel comfortable with the suggestion that one, unnamed, probably newer, admin is really a sock. It tends to cast us under some suspicion. (And, no, I am not Kennedy.) Kansan (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it may be best to ignore the comments? After all, if Kennedy is a sysop here, then he's been nominated and passed an RfA which mean the community has approved him to be an admin [again]. And if that is the case then I have no real problem with his starting afresh after what was possibly just a mistake after all. I just don't understand why if that is correct, he's now told us? Hmm, a lot of assumptions in there! - tholly ^--Talk-- 22:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
No admins will be CU'ed as a matter of course, or as a response to this person's claims. fr33kman 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Kennedy may reapply for these rights via the standard RfA and RfB processes" was stated at Kennedy's RFDA. As he has stated that he scrambled his password, he would not be able to log back in in order to return to the wiki as Kennedy. If he wishes to return to the wiki under another name, and he has gained the trust of the community, then what is the issue? The only issue here is the behavior of the IPs who cannot be 100% for certain linked to Kennedy.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree! If Kennedy wishes to return, it'll have to be with a new name, and from what I've seen today (casting aspersions on the admin team, admitting other accounts), a new attitude. fr33kman 22:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I still think it's Kennedy. (by the way, I'm not Kennedy) πr² 23:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think CheckUser'ing admins is needed. On a side note: I have never seen the name Kennedy before, so I assume their activity was before my time. Can someone point me in the right direction as to what happened? -Avicennasis @ 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I've already said, no admins will be CUed regarding this. Secondly, here should give an overview. fr33kman 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are socks like that allowed? πr² 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A user in good standing is permitted to have more than one account, and is not required to disclose the additional account(s). This is not sockpuppetry. When it becomes wrong, is when you use one account to suppoort the activities of the other. In Kennedy's case, he (the human being behind the accounts) voted twice. Once as Kennedy, once as NotGiven. He was asked about it quietly by a checkuser, and he decided to run an RFDA/RFDB of his own accord and failed it. fr33kman 00:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Would one have to tell a crat about their sock? πr² 01:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just stating my stance on the subject. Thank you kindly for the link. :) -Avicennasis @ 00:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you were just giving an opinion. :) I just wanted to reiterate that admins are not under suspicion. Your're welcome for the link. Let me know if you need more information. fr33kman 00:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do wish there was a way to definitely verify this IP was Kennedy, though I think it quite likely it really was him. Is it possible for Kennedy to verify it through MSN or something? As Fr33kman said, it would probably be best to make a new account. Of course, I am not Kennedy, so he'll have to speak for himself... —Clementina talk 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a possibility... πr² 02:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• As a courtesy, we might could have a dev recall the email address so he can recover his password, however, there is still no good link betwixt the IP and if it is really Kennedy. Jon@talk:~$ 07:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether its kennedy or not...they acheived their goal of disruption. Let's just move on. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.