Wikipedia talk:RecentChanges/Archive 1

New background colour

I think this new pink background is too distracting. Does anyone else agree that a lighter shade or a return to white is needed?
SimonMayer 23:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know I am a little late, but SimonMayer, you should be open to new ideas, expand your colour palet. Think Pink. Moonshine... out. JewishLuvah 10:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Why cannot this page be edited now? --Aphaia 21:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It was protected becuase it was vandalized about a month ago. -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Lines

Wait, I'm confused. Is the line titled "Page requests: What we should have - Most wanted" supposed to be a list of articles that we don't have? Shouldn't they be red links at least? If so, why is the month/day article there? Those are all there now so that won't be a red link. And the line "Simplification: Perfect stub article - Long pages - Translation of the week"? Are those underneath ("Portuguese - Matrix - World War I") just random articles? It looks like the intent was for simplification requests or something but then Portuguese language should be removed from here? Why is March 2004 there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I infer that people are supposed to take those out as they create them, but I didn't know how to do so until now. - PhilipR 20:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What we should have" - complex grammatical construction

I won't go so far as to mark the whole template unsimple, but IMO this is way too confusing for SE. While the words themselves appear quite simple, looks can be deceiving! What in this case is a pronoun, but what first-year English student knows that sort of construction? (My mind jumps to the Spanish translation -- lo que necesitamos -- which is an extremely advanced construction. The English version is no less advanced, but is deceiving to native speakers because what is a common word used for other things.)

My suggestion: Pages we need (to create). Get rid of the what-as-pronoun and the should -- kill two birds with one stone. - PhilipR 20:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Links

These Links:

Break - Charge - Ground - Order - Public - Read - Stage - Text

have to be done. mfg --- ארגה · ‽ · Manecke 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Themes?

I don't have anything against Christians (you might even be able to guess why), but I don't think it is very NPOV to have only Christianity-related page requests listed. Besides, most of these aren't even particularly important topics for Christianity. Unless it is an action agreed upon by all/most community members (perhaps as part of a progression through themes), I think we need to change this. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

These are generally caused when a navigation template is used. The redlinks on it tends to fill up the top of the most wanted page list and some users will just take the top of the list to replace created articles rather than spread out the types of topics that get listed on Recent Changes. A couple from the same template may be fine, but the entire list from one template is certainly going overboard unless it is a very important template and as you pointed out, this one certainly is not. -- Creol(talk) 22:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative tool to Shortpages

Clicking here should bring up a nifty alternative tool to Special:Shortpages (currently defunct, since 6-20-08), that will bring up the shortest few articles that are in the article category system. (It won't bring up articles lacking cats, though.) The threshhold can be tweaked to a larger number than 180 bytes, to see more of the shortest pages - but for some reason, you have to remove the en- part from the first box where it says en-simple, or it won't reload. Cheers, Blockinblox - talk 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding DYK to the template?

Hello all,

I think that Wikipedia:Did you know should be added to the template. Considering it's one of our probably best ways to attract new editors, it may be useful, especially seeing as things such as RfA etc are on there.

Thanks,

BG^7even 11:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

GO ahead..--Eptalon (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done BG^7even 12:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias

What happened to the links to the other Wikipedias and Wikiquotes and Wiktionaries on the Recentchanges? I would really appreciate it if they could be added back again :). Cheers, Razorflame 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We removed them a while back as the template is waaaaay to big. I have several different monitor sizes in my house, and on every one it takes up more than one browser window so that I have to scroll to see the Recent Changes. If someone wishes to make it collapsed by default, or remove other fluff that isn't updated/changing, be my guest and add them in. Thanks, Goblin 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the Good Article/Very Good Article section necessary? It strikes me as a massive waste of space. Actually, a lot of it could be condensed; Editor Review is hardly a section that needs constant exposure. Check out q:Wikiquote:RecentChanges, which I think does a fairly good job of putting everything together without taking up too much space. At any rate, I think it's best for all the Simple English projects that they link to one another, which is why I (unknowingly) restored the links. EVula // talk // 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Simple English projects should link to each other. The RC box should autocollapse by default. Majorly ^talk 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair points to both of you, however i'm not certain that we do need links to other project. As for the other comments, i'll look into removing "fluff" and condesing what we have and collapsing it. Thanks, Goblin 23:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound too dramatic, but given the amount of dislike for the Simple English concept, I think it's in our best interest to make sure they all work together as smoothly as possible; since the SE Wikipedia is the largest Simple English project, it makes sense for it to link to the sister projects (in the hope that SE editors here will also participate in other SE projects). EVula // talk // 07:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we should stick together and support each other... Majorly ^talk 11:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the principle, and while there is some cross over there is also inter-project conflict. Still, that's getting off topic now! I'll see what I can do! Goblin 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Random bold terms

Why are the "Requests for deletion", "Requests for adminship", and "Editor Review" links bold? "Welcome" I can easily see, but the others... I don't see any rhyme or reason to them. EVula // talk // 18:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I went to edit the template and realized that it's a way of denoting that there's an active request there. Hardly a decent system of notification, especially on something like deletion requests, where more often than not there's going to at least be something. I'm gonna play around with it... EVula // talk // 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I added what I think to be some clarity, I hope this helps. Cheers! NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically a Request for deadminship is still a Request for adminship. Since they happen so rarely I don't see the need for the extra wording but if it makes him feel better we can leave the alternate wording till its done. -Djsasso (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What about RFOs, Checkuserships, & RFBs? They are all on the same page, so shouldn't we put all of them in the box, and to Djsasso, I don't see how a RFDA is a RFA. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've since undone again as there is no consensus for anything at the moment. RfdAs are uncommon, as are RfBs, RfOs and RfCUs, even RfAs. The page they are all on is called RfA. Uneeded, don't overcomplicate things :) Goblin 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't editwar over this, but this number signifies the number of current RfAs, or that is how a visitor to the page from enWP would see it. Personally, I think we should move the sub-topics (RfO, RfB, etc.) into new pages. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How often do we have RfOs, RfBs etc? Besides, ENWP put their RfXs all on one page. And nor do I see how it will make an en visitor see this as they don't even have a number shown. This is how we've done it for quite a long time now - let's not fix what isn't broken and go build a wiki :). Goblin 15:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When you go to recent changes and you see' Requests for Adminship (2), you automatically suppose that there are 2 RfAs. Maybe change the wording so it makes it more clear. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly never thought that, but hey-ho. Personally, I think until the proposing user comes and gives comment... or it's opened up to a wider audience... that this is exhausted and we should go encyclopedia-build and not fret about something. If people are fussed about RfXs then they will click the link and see what the number means. Goblin 15:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And what, exactly, is the problem with someone thinking there are two RfAs when one of them is actually an RfDA? If they click the link, they find out what's actually going on, no harm no foul. If they don't, it's because they don't care.
There is no problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

EVula, i've got a nail and hammer - want to hit it on the head? That's what i've been saying :) Goblin 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup exactly. -Djsasso (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, at enWP, oversight and checkuser rights are not located at RfA. All checkusers and oversighters are selected by ArbCom. Deadminships are handled at RfC. So, you were wrong, but we can leave the template as it is for now, until we grow a lot more. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you're going to point out that someone is wrong, please make sure you yourself are right. CU and OS permissions are (as of this past February) something that the community votes on. However, the statement that "all RfXs are on one page" is correct, as RfX is a common abbreviation that covers RfAs and RfBs.
As for deadminship, there isn't a location (RfC is a toothless process) aside from an ArbCom ruling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An RfdA is the same as an RfA because they are both determining if the person should be an Administrator. We just put the de in the title so that people will understand that if they vote Support they will be supporting removing the flag instead of adding the flag as in a typical Rfa. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about messing up the order, but Jimbo and a few other editors at enWP do it, so I thought it was correct. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I am right. The checkusers & oversighters are selected by ArbCom and then voted on by the community. As for RfDAs, I was reading the See Also section of RfA. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My above comment was confusing, so I think that you thought I was saying something else. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

*headdesk* The importance of this entire situation is indirectly proportionate to how much discussion is going on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pasted from subpage

Discussion from Wikipedia talk:RecentChanges/Community

{{editprotected}} Editor review (1-->3). Thanks, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I thought a bot does this work... -Barras (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Another: Requests for deletion (2-->0). Thanks for your time, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} 0 editor reviews. πr² (talk • changes) 02:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]] --> [[WP:DRV|Deletion review]] --SEPTActaMTA8235 19:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)  Done Jon@talk:~$ 20:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC) {{editprotected}} 2 DRVs and two editor reviews. --SEPTActaMTA8235 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's just unprotect this one too and all. Goblin 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Pmlineditor!

 Done Jon@talk:~$ 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Most wanted

The most wanted articles link is written funny. I'm sure those footbal articles can not be the most wanted articles. I intend to rephase the portion of the template... unless there are objections. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. However, our SQL dump is rather old, so you may need to ask someone on the Toolserver to run a query. Chenzw  Talk  14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know someone who will run SQL queries. I'll follow up when I get home. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... - I've already got the latest dump, and i'm just clearing out the junk :). Creol told me how he did it, i've just never got round to it! Should be a couple of hours at most. (It is quite a big job!). I will look into a tool for this too, possibly. Goblin 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy! 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it.. seems it is not working. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone it per my opposition, further discussion is needed around this - nothing is "not working". Goblin 11:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

• Most wanted is re-added. New redlinks. I disagree with the decission to remove them. Barras (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The same links have been red. If the section were working, articles would be made. Also, this section is entirely subjective. What data source is this derived... it is not. It is hand made. One person does not dertermine what is "most wanted". `NonvocalScream (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically its supposed to be whatever articles have the most links to them. But I could care less either way, stay or go. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the most wanted articles all come from the same subject (which is flawed). If you actually run the proper SQL query, the most wanted article will be the one with the most number of links leading to it (which is still flawed, in a sense, but less so). Chenzw  Talk  15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we do that instead? I don't know what exact query to run. NVS is not SQL guru. :) NonvocalScream (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The system is currently flawed because it is using a dump from quite a long time ago. Many of the links are the same because of navboxes or the like with mass redlinks. The simplest thing to do is to simply remove these links to balance it up. As for queries, we don't need one to be run, I already have the dump. If anyone needs to know which dump it is and what needs doing, just ask. Will expand more shortly. Goblin 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Proposal

I propose the removal of the most wanted/requested pages sections because:

• The redlinks, prior to this discussion, have been red for quite a while.
• The picks are subjective.

Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose No they haven't. I actually created a few before. Also today, Barras and I created many articles. Regards, Pmlineditor I ♥ Gobby! 15:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC).

What about getting a new dump, and then updating? - Which in theory could be odne by a bot if we stick to the most linked to criterion? --Eptalon (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I haz dump, as I keep saying. The problem is is that it takes a very long time to go through it manually and update. I'm doing it, but it takes a long time. Goblin 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

I'm told that some SQL query might take less time... but chenz knows more then I on that... Additionally... I'm also told the tollserver dbase is bjorked at the moment. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The toolserver database is back up now, and I am going to run the query on my toolserver account once it has synced. Will keep an update on progress. Goblin 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Works. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove the articles that have been created? Three of them have been created and have been crossed out. I was going to just remove them but thought I should ask here first.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that is the current practice. Just remove them and put what might be the most wanted articles. Cheers, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what are the most wanted, but I can remove them.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles has a list of most wanted. Please only remove and replace, don't just remove. Thanks, Goblin 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

(outdent) Yes... and keep in mind... that is really out of date. BG7 has a new list coming directly. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I will slap some more up.--Gordonrox24 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finally gotten the query done on the Toolserver. If it is fine with the community, my bot will be updating the most wanted list soon. Chenzw  Talk  09:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the Simple English Wikiquote link?

As far as I am concerned, the result of a recent closure discussion was for it to be closed. I doubt that any help that would change the result would do any good.  Kaltxì Na'vi!  20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Goblin 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Bold

Eptalon suggested that the bot (EhJBot3) automatically bold sections that have more than one request (i.e. RfD or RfA) and leave those that have no (0) active discussions unbold. Seems like a good idea to me (and I think it's something we used to do). Before I change the code, I wanted to hear if there are any objections. EhJJ^TALK 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a good idea. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually disagree with de-bolding ones without any active discussions - particularly in the case of P(V)GA and PAD - because my personal view on the bolding is that it draws attention to areas that need community input, regardless of whether or not something is active there or not - hope that all makes sense! Goblin 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

Yeah, I think bold/unbold makes sense for the "Community" section, but not for the "Article Improvement" section. I have created new code for the bot, which I am testing at Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Community and Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Article Improvement. Part of the idea is to move the bot updates to subpages (similar to what GBot1 does at {{totw}}). Let me know if this looks good or needs changing. EhJJ^TALK 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made all of the above changes. Users who want to see changes to counts should add Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Community and Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Article Improvement to their watchlists!! Please let me know if there are any bugs. Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 15:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

EhJBot3

EhJBot3 - the bot that has been updating various counts on wikipedia - is not currently working. Due to some change in the MediaWiki API, there is some problem with how it logs in. I'll try to fix it this weekend, but in the mean time, the counts should be updated manually (or get another bot). Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 02:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll update them when I'm online. Lauryn^☆ 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot appears to be working again. Thanks for keeping the pages updated while I worked on the code. EhJJ^TALK 02:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Importing

Can we include Imports in the Community header, next to AN? I'd find it much easier to navigate to. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. This page just transcludes Wikipedia:RecentChanges. You can make the change yourself on that page. EhJJ^TALK 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What? It's protected from editing. I can't do it. I want to make this change: "Community: Simple talk - Requests for deletion (2) - Requests for permissions (1) - Requests for checkuser - Oversight - Administrators' noticeboard - Imports - Change Username - Editor Review (0) - Simple News

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No point in adding it, just post on AN. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archival added

180d/55k, same bot as always, nuff said. --Eptalon (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This page was at 19k after how many years of use? Automated archival is completely unneeded. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Improvement section

{{editprotected}} This section is too tall vertically. Please stretch it out horizontally like the other sections. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure what you mean by that.. what are the dimensions of the template did you roughly would like in pixels? :) You can also demonstrate below or your userspace. Nifky^{^} 02:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it seems the problem is in Wikipedia:RecentChanges/Article Improvement, I've addressed it at Wikipedia talk:RecentChanges/Article Improvement#Vertical_height instead.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Takiyah

{{editprotected}} Can we remove this page from the list? The subject does not seem notable at the moment. He has only been apparent on Facebook. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea there is not about a specific person, it is to describe the concept Muslims have; as such it is probably notable, so far we have not found a muslim who could explain it...--Eptalon (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

...The sources that I found were mainly blogs. The article doesn't even exist on En. Can you provide a few references for its notability? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Redlink

Why is the translation of the week, Index on Censorship a redlink?  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 17:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been created yet, once it is created it will turn blue and a checkmark will pop up by it letting us know that that entry for TotW is finished. @Lauryn (parlez) 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We are supposed to translate it from another wiki. (I think) πr² (talk • changes) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So its what is to be done, not what has been done. I understand.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 17:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

{{totw}} is updated by a bot based on the project at Meta. EhJJ^TALK 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ToTW please, especially since we have an Egypt-related article!

RecentChanges is still protected. I tried to add the new Translations of the Week, but get this message. "This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators." The ToTW are Henry Watson Fowler and Salama Moussa. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual template is located at Template:Totw. You should be able to change it. I had trouble finding it when I first attempted to update it. wiooiw (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

D'Oh! Now I get it. Thanks! Gotanda (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Cee Lo Green

I created a stub for Cee Lo Green. The "most wanted" list contains "Cee-Lo Green" (with a hyphen). Can this be struck from the list? --Another Believer (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Most Wanted

Can an admin please update the most wanted section? Thanks!  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please update the most wanted section (again)? Thanks!  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to tell us every time a link goes blue. @Lauryn (parlez) 21:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems I do; this: "Hurricane Marilyn" has been there for days, and I'm sure admins have seen it, but ignored it, so here I go again: Can an admin please update the most wanted section (again, again)? Thanks! Hazard-SJ ^Talk 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done EhJJ^TALK 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Same with Johnny Curtis Battleaxe9872 ^文/ _テ 13:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I would love to know why the section is outdated (no need to reply; just update it). Thanks. -- Hazard-SJ  ±  02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hate to repeat myself. ↑  Hazard-SJ  ±  23:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do it yourself? Goblin 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge!

Really? It's transcluded now? That's good!  Hazard-SJ  ±  02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Someone de-link 'Article Improvement'. PR doesn't exist anymore. Goblin 02:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Changed the link to en:Wikipedia:Article development, hope this is OK. Albacore (talk · changes) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think no link at all would be best, to be honest, to avoid confusion - or, at the very least, a soft redirect to a local page on what is a very high profile template. Goblin 20:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!

Soft redirected, I think a link should be given to match the others on the sidebar. Best, Albacore (talk · changes) 20:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Navbox

Why don't we use Template:Navbox? It looks better :-) --weltforce (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Requests for permissions

I think for the requests for permissions link we should include rollback,patroller and checkuser requests.Receptie123 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Impractical - For one, we need a bot to handle the updating. Such requests come up so infrequently it doesn't really justify the expense of getting a bot to do it. Furthermore, this is a small wiki and most of us already have them on our watchlists. Chenzw  Talk  12:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Flood Flag (1) (wrong)

On the RecentChanges page it says that there is one Flood.The information is wrong.Reception123 / Receptie123 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Osiris and Djsasso had a flood flag today. I think it is just a server cache issue. --@intforce 16:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It always will say there is 1 for awhile after the flag is removed. This is normal. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete everything striked out. Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.} 04:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We update it over time. It stays striked out for awhile as a show of us completing the list. Patience. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

New users' edits

That text links to Special:Contributions/newbies, which unfortunately doesn't show new users' edits but the edits of the user 'Newbies'. To show new users' edits, the link should be changed to something like [{{fullurl:Special:Contributions|contribs=newbie}} New users' edits]. You might also want to change it to 'new users' changes', since Simple English for 'edit' is 'change'. Cathfolant (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it's working okay for me. I'm able to see the contributions of newer accounts by clicking on the link on the template. Only (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why, you're right. I tried going to the corresponding page on Simple English Uncyclopedia, which doesn't work, and assumed it didn't work on wikipedia either, but maybe I should have known better.

Not really related, but I'm also wondering if the link saying you can change this message could be misleading, since it's full protected and I don't expect most of us are administrators. Cathfolant (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What message is that? I don't see one saying that you can change this message? If you mean the link called "Change" on the lower right hand side that is just a normal edit link like is on every template. On simple.wiki we call those links change instead of edit because we use simple english. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the tooltip Cathfolant is referring to. It's the standard tooltip, but it's been written into the code: "You can change this message. Please use the preview button before saving." It's on line 45. Osiris (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

University of Munich

I am planning on creating the University of Munich page, but I think that the article should be located at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, which is its full name, and we can have a redirect at University of Munich. If this is OK, can somebody change the most wanted changes to reflect the name change, or should it wait until I create the article and the redirect? Thesixthstaff (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think not. We should have the simplest and most commonly used title for our pages. There are many examples where a formal title is far too long for general use. The reasoning is similar to that for personal names: the title should be long enough to avoid ambiguity, but not more. Of course, the official full title or names should be given in the intro. We should actively seek ways to make our text simpler, and easier to read. There are many examples on our zoology pages where we have preferred a well-known common name to a longer and not so well known latin binomial. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Page addition

I added a new page, Heavy Water. Please cross it out. PokestarFan (talk) (My Contribs) 22:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: What do you mean by "cross it out"? I deleted that page because it was a dicdef. Even if it hadn't been, a page called "heavy water" should be about the form of water, not about a slang term. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: It crosses it out automatically if the page actually exists. In this case, it does not. Look at your own link, it's red. The page was deleted under A1 - little or no meaning. If you want help, I'm sure either Yottie or I, or both of us even, would be glad to help on a page in your userspace. --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 22:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)