Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 79

< Wikipedia:Simple talk

improving skills

Hi all! I will probably run for adminship sometime in April. Thus I would like to know if there are any suggestions on how I can improve or some things I should work on before running. I have asked some people the same question, and now I would like to know what the community thinks. All comments will be of help. Thanks, I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better forum for this would be an Wikipedia:Editor review. Either way (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You already had a review... Pmlineditor ∞ 10:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the only person who actually criticized him seriously was you. :p Belinda and I just complimented him, and nobody else commented. I think he wants to know a little more just in case. Classical Esther♣ 10:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of an editor review is to make sure the editor gets all the feedback (good and bad) from what they did, regardless of whether his/her friends are commenting or not. The whole point is to be honest with their contributions and other things in this project, not simply supporting them just because you know them well, they know you, or you're good friends. This is crucial they so know what to improve in the future which is the point they wanted an assessment of themselves, rather than just mainly compliments. Nifky^ 10:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very right, and I think I-on should do another editor review...hmm...But then again, Nifky?, we weren't complimenting him because we knew him well. We just got to know him very recently on Simple English Wikipedia. It's just that I'm not very good at criticizing. Pmlineditor pointed out some very good tips for improvement to I-on though. Classical Esther♣ 11:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess another editor review would be best. Sorry. I just put it in the archives. Not many people seemed to review me. I think it was 4. I was expecting more like 8. I thought this would be better since pretty much everybody comes here. I will set another one up. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 13:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Just remove it from the archives and say that you want the timespan extended. Pmlineditor ∞ 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To late. Already made another one. Sorry! :) I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I can delete it and fix the thing... Pmlineditor ∞ 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the one thing people who want to be an admin should do to become an admin? Is to stop trying to be an admin. People who are working to try and build themselves up to be an admin probably aren't suited to be one. So my recommendation is to stop thinking about what to do to become an admin and just work on articles. Adminship will come when/if you are ready. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to icons

Can someone point me to the discussion where we had a community consensus to change the icons for good and very good articles please. I think we've gone through this before.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O dear, I thought it had been changed by community consent... Classical Esther♣ 11:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion? Pmlineditor ∞ 11:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now reverted. *sigh* This was heavily debated last year, and there was a consensus to retain the original icons. Obento lost his rollback as a result of edit warring over these icons, so I'm very disappointed to see these changes being made without discussion. Please, let's not have a round 2 of this silly drama. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that in the archives; the previous discussion and the drama regarding it. While I agree that the Main Page/(V)GA icons could be better, especially the former, there is no need to change them without consensus. I think it'll be best if Obento gives some examples of (V)GA icons and we have a straw poll regarding it. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm a bit tired of Obento disappearing for ages and then just popping back to redesign the Wikipedia without discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I believe he returned because some editors asked him to redesign MP. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they asked him to make a proposal on how to change it, but it seems like he's been changing pieces of the main page as part of his "proposing" rather than making the proposal solely in his user space. Either way (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It would be a better idea to test this in his userspace. No one is stopping him from trying out icons within his userspace. The main space need not be changed at all. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to be able to see the icons at all. Weird. Yottie =talk= 11:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAs? It's probably because they were put at the bottom... Pmlineditor ∞ 11:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection templates

Related to this, was there ever a consensus with the protection templates? I noticed that many of Obento's edits in the last day involve changing icons on articles from {{pp-semi-protected}} to {{protected}}. See edits like this. I do not think we ever decided to change over to his proposed templates. I thought they were rejected pretty handily. Also, is there consensus to place those templates and the good article templates at the very bottom of articles as he seems to be doing? Either way (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just revert those. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah revert, this changing of templates and icons etc etc has to stop. There needs to be discussion. I have half a mind to protect all these icons. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

For what it's worth, this is appears to be an indication that Obento doesn't agree with what's happened to his edits. Or, at least, he's not interested in participating in dialogue with the rest of the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect...

...where is the redirect button in editing tools on the top of the edit window? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11th from right, near the middle. It looks like #R --Griffinofwales (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This... (Image does not exist)

...is all I have. Odd. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be between horizontal line and strike, which I also notice you do not have. Lauryn (u • t • c) 19:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd. My toolkit continues past the "four hyphens" to redirect, strikethrough, line break etc.. all the way to open/close ref. Yours is broke....! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it is a gadget conflict or my monobook, have to go back to work... I'll remove the image when it becomes useless (i.e. this thread ends) Thank you for taking a look. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its probably a gadget issue as its happened to me in the past here. Infact now that I look its happening to me now. I just type it out manually anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My toolbar looks the same minus the broom. I have never had the redirect button, I just figured it wasn't something simple had on the interface. Weird.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is weird; my toolbar is just like Gordon's. I do not have any of the tools after the horizontal line. Megan|talkchanges 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the full set of the toolkit. --Bsadowski1(Talk|Changes) 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's other buttons? I only have those. But no matter, I'm a keyboard enthusiast anyway. SS✞(Kay) 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Update... we have some bad js somewhere, I believe it to be in the gadgets... I'm localizing and will come back with more updates, hopefully! :) Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I'm using Twinkle and popups. Probably not the issue, but... SS✞(Kay) 07:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Houston, Texas to Houston...consistent with other 'pedias. Also, the Houston, Renfrewshire in the disamb page doesn't exist Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importers policy

Need to gauge a consensus, so please go to Wikipedia talk:Importers where there is a straw poll. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I have seen some users like this one that are mainly here because they are trying to get unblocked from en. But wikipedia rules state:

"Simple English Wikipedia is not a rehabilitation centre for vandals from other sites. It is not somewhere for banned users to try and get unbanned elsewhere. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate Wikipedia in its own right, and should not need troublesome users referred to it."

Shouldn't they be blocked? Just a thought. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not as long as they edit here without being disruptive. fr33kman 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. thx. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the possible exception of cross-wiki vandals, there will be no "wholesale" blocking of users based on the fact that they are blocked in another Wikipedia. To be blocked here, they will therefore need to perform actionds that usually lead to blocks. If I remember correctly, there are very few users that are blocked for a longer time than like a month. --Eptalon (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a policy of one strike for someone banned on another wiki. If they mess up once here they get banned here as well. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do? NonvocalScream (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do the decision was made around 1 1/2 years ago, maybe more, still just for the record for you I and other users that were here before the decision was made were grandfathered.--  † CR90  07:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if I'm grandfathered, that means I can give others second chances...? I was never banned or blocked from any WMF wiki. NonvocalScream (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to that conclusion? I meant those that were abnned on enWP that were here were grandfathered, and I have no idea where you got the "give second chances" from.--  † CR90  07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said that I had been grandfather, above, in your statement. Quote "...still just for the record for you I and other users...". So I was confused to what you meant by me being grandfathered in, since I had never been banned, blocked, or restricted from any wiki, at any time. So, I had a difficult time parsing your statement. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is sending these users here to get unbanned? For a couple of users who have claimed that this is their reason for being here, I have looked for instructions to come here and behave, but have found none. Are En:WP admins actually publicly stating this? Kansan (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know.. But IMO, probably somebody is sending them. Though I am blocked in enWP because people think I am a sockpuppet of Esther or someother mistake, I certainly did not come to seWP because I was "sent" by somebody. I don't want to be unblocked in enWP, to say the truth, because there's nothing much to do on there, and I semi-retired there anyway.... But anyway, I think that really an admin or somebody is sending all those people there. Several users I have seen, too, have on their user pages that they "will earn trust from the community and will be unblocked" if they do well on simple wikipedia. Wonder who it is... ♥ Belinda ♥ 08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no offical statement to do it. Its just our reputation. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion on the English Wikipedia on my talk page might give a little bit of insight. It's something that a lot of admins there do. Either way (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy here on navboxes copied from other Wikipedias, such as the one that was just added to several Led Zeppelin-related articles? Kansan (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as attribution is given, then they are ok. I havent looked at that particular one yet, but I will do so and make sure its attributed. -DJSasso (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they should be adapted to our wiki, as appropriate. For example, that navbox has a Portal link. We don't have portals on this wiki, so that should be removed. Often, if navboxes are almost entirely red-links, they may qualify for deletion, because they are not useful. EhJJTALK 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm guilty here. I copy navboxes because of the red links... Candidiasis for example... out of the navbox, I also created the Esophageal and Oral variants. It encourages creation, hopefully. Yes, I note that no other links were turned blue,. I hope sometime they will. Capillary is another where redlinks offer some guidance as to what needs created to encourage full coverage. IRCd also, most especially the "general topics" offers more guidance. This one however, collapses. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I leave the red links per en:WP:REDLINK which basically says redlinks lead to creation. I know it worked on the NHL template I brought over, lots of you created articles for it because they showed up on the most wanted because of the template. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, redlinks are useful ways of signifying the non-existence of an important article. However, sometimes these templates contains links to article that are unlikely to exist on this wiki. In the case of Led Zeppelin, it might make more sense that each of the tours be a subsection of this article (or a single article about the tours), rather each as its own article. EhJJTALK 22:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry guys, I plan on having most of the links turn blue over the next weeks... Also thanks to the user who transported the template over here so I didn't have to copy all that text.. I couldn't do that myself. Is it also OK just to copy the song lists from EN Wiki? I've been doing that and replacing "track listing" with "song listing", so there's no ambuigity. The same goes for the top-right album templates. Lord revan (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should penalty shootout be moved?

Should we move Penalty shootout to Penalty shootout (soccer) to differentiate between PS's in soccer and other sports such as Ice hockey?. Lord revan (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we have the article already...no need to disambiguate if there are no other articles yet. -DJSasso (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word Lists

I hope this question isn't too out of place. Can someone point me to a set of lists of the n-most common words in English, where n might range from 100 to higher number like 50,000? (I know that's high, so a smaller number would be fine.) This version of wikipedia is really interesting to me; it reminds me of the simplified English sometimes used on Voice of America programs. I'm curious which words are appropriate and which words are much more uncommon than the ones used here.

Also, is there a better place for me to ask questions here? This looks like it's for official purposes and not for people like me.

Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist lists our basic 850 word vocabulary. We'd love to have you contribute! (And anybody can ask questions or participate here.) Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I supposed to only use those words or is it more of a suggestion to do so? That looks really hard to write an article with so small a selection.
Suggestion to do so. See the links on your talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome message!
You can do a great job here. I'm in love with this wiki now :P --Diego (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wordlists This is a point that I made more than a year ago, and I'm going to remind everybody of it once more, in line with the question above, and the response from GriffonofWales.

account • acid • addition • adjustment • advertisement • agreement • amusement • apparatus • approval • arch • argument • attack • attempt • attention • attraction • authority • automatic • balance • basin • behavior • belief • bulb • business • canvas • carriage • cause • certain • chalk • chance • chemical • chief • comfort • committee • common • company • comparison • competition • complete • complex • condition • connection • conscious • control • credit • current • curtain • curve • cushion • damage • debt • decision • degree • delicate • dependent • design • desire • destruction • detail • development • different • digestion • direction • discovery • discussion • disease • disgust • distance • distribution • division • doubt • education • effect • elastic • electric • engine • enough • equal • error • event • example • exchange • existence • expansion • experience • expert • false • feeble • female • fertile • fiction • frequent • friend • future • general • government • group • growth • guide • important • impulse • increase • industry • instrument • insurance • interest • invention

  • These are a few of the words that were considered basic vocabulary by the person who constructed this particular list that is recommended. Notice that it includes several words that pertain to money, like "business", "competition", "distribution", "company", "debt", "credit", "exchange" and "industry". None of these are very easy words that a young child would know. But they are all very useful if you want to communicate with someone about your investments.
  • There are also words like "apparatus", "impulse", "authority", "complex", "dependent" and "disgust". All of which have limited use on Simple English Wikipedia.

I write about art and architecture. Why isn't the word "architecture" on this list? It describes a huge field of human creativity, and of the human experience of the environment. The word "environment" was probably not a necessity when this list was compiled. However, it is now part of the vocabulary of every English-speaking six-year-old. The word "create" is not on the list. The compiler of this list was sadly unaware that along with buying and selling, and eating what has been bought, "creating" is something that humans do a great deal of. "Creativity" is surely just as useful a word as "apparatus". It is a word that I need all the time.

The list obviously needs expanding to include basic words from fields of human endeavour other than "business, competition, distribution, credit and exchange". The first word that I recommend to all you editors who have obviously not sufficiently studied, digested and considered this list, is the word that is essential to what we are doing here.

What we do here is "edit". We do not simply "change". We edit. That is the process. That is the word we need.

  • I am going to request that everyone who voted to keep the foolish instruction "Change this page" goes back to the list of recommended words, thinks about the real use of the more "complex" (yes it's there) words on that list, and then seriously considers what words we as "editors" need to add to the list, in order to fulfil our purpose.

Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring as a new list from an accredited source. That's what the above list is. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do simply change the article, I think thats what you are failing to grasp. You are looking for more meaning in the word change, than there is. Change just means to make different in its simplest form which is what we use. Anyone who changes a page is making it different. Edit is just a more complicated way of saying to make something different. The goal of this wiki is to stick as close as possible to the official accredited lists, that is our mission. As for why architecture isn't on the list, its probably because there are other words that more easily describe what architecture is. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already had such discussion; way back, I think with an editor that no longer contributes; the English Wiktionary has a different kinds of word lists. The one used by Project Gutenberg is quite big - their problem is that the texts they have are "older", so these word lists are perhaps not up to date. What I proposed at the time I think was to compile a "dictionary" of perhaps 10.000 words. With that, ignore proper names/placenames. "Architecture" is between 6.000th and 8.000th place in the Project Gutenberg lists. Perhaps take the top 15.000 of two such lists, sort for occurrences, and take the top 10.000 of that. Words used more commonly are more likely to be understood. And don't refrain from using words not on the word list... --Eptalon (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is Original Research which can't be used. -DJSasso (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Where does OR start? Suppose we find a list that contains 50.000 words, am I allowed to take the first 10.000 of them? - Am I allowed to clean the list (for proper names/placenames and such) before taking the 10.000 words? --Eptalon (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response The point that I am making is that the list really isn't all that simple.
GriffonofWales, Djsasso, you are missing the point. I have in this list almost every single word that I could possibly need to describe finance, but none of the words to describe the arts. The list of words is very lopsided, regardless of how accreditted it may be. The word "architecture" is as essential as the word "literature". To leave either out of an Encyclopedic vocab would be foolish.
What we need is a simple word list/dictionary that is wide enough to cover the things that an encyclopedia writes about. Day to day communication does not need words like "dinosaur", "planet", "cathedral", "evolution" and so on, but we need those words here because this is an encyclopedia.
Among the most important ways to keep English expression simple is to use correct grammatical terms, and avoid the roundabout expression that can come from reducing everything to words of one syllable, and avoid using short words which can mean a number of different things. "Change" being the case in point. Yes, you are right. "Changing" things is what we do, on a simplistic level. "Simplistic" does not mean the same as "simple". We don't want to invite "random change". That is why we need the word "edit" in our encyclopedic vocabulary, much more than we need the word "credit". We also need the word "discuss" infinitely more than the word "disgust". We hardly need the word "feeble' at all, but we can use it if we like, because it is there on the list! Will our readers understand? Probably not.
I do not think that Eptalon's suggestion constitutes Personal Research. I think that it constitutes a solution to the problem of the present truly inadequate vocabulary.
Amandajm (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this wiki was created to use the BE lists. To define our own lists is personal research and moves out of the mission that this wiki took on when it was granted status. This would be akin to using english words all over the french wiki because it was easier. We should not be using words not on that list if at all posible. And when we do use words not on those lists we link them to the simple.wiktionary. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) While we are at it let me point out a very different problem. I have written 'scientific' publications during my career. The problem with such publications, and esp. with simplifying them is that that they need vocabulary that is precise, to the point that it may be specific to a domain of knowledge. I don't really care how you describe those (usually red) bottles containing liquids or foam, used to get rid of fires. Of what heard, they are called fire extinguishers. Extinguish is a word that you will probably not find in the top 5.000 of many word lists, yet the word is easy to understand for those of Romance languages. In Spanish, extinguir has precisely that meaning, in French, an extincteur might sound silly, but to my knowledge, thats what those things are called. So even though the word is not on the word list, many of our target audience will not have many problems guessing. At the end of the day, please regard word lists as a tool, but do not attach too much meaning to the fact that a word may not be on the list. Please steer clear of phrasal verbs, as their meaning changes too fast. --Eptalon (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, I agree with this: a science article has to be science, and that does put a limit to its potential simplification. Precision as to the meaning of terms is highly important, so a judicious selection of them is needed in practically all science pages. You might be interested to know that Ogden himself developed extra lists for each science: see Ogden C.K. 1942. Basic for science. London. Unfortunately some of these lists are now of less relevance because of the way biology (for example) has advanced in the last half-century. His list fails to cover molecular and cell biology, yet includes words I've not seen in any simple biology page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want to go down the wordlist route, I'd guess we need a list of about 10.000 words. We need to get these words from those in "current use"; the "TV and film" vocab on SEWikt (linked above) will probably be a good start. In addition, we will need basic vocabulary from the sciences, to be able to cover such topics. The science I am coming from is looking back on a history of perhaps 30-50 years, so Ogden won't have covered it, in 1942. Getting the wordlist together must also be a project we undertake with wiktionary. I expect that for each word on the list, you can either describe it with a picture, or there is a SEWikt entry for it. Finally, we need the "open" apporach, that is we do not limit our vocabulary to the items in the list. --Eptalon (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An up to date word list is a great idea, lets form a group and see what we can do. In the meantime, the Basic English list is our starting point, a useful tool, and most of the words are still relevant. I always try to use the list, and when I do need the red thing for putting out fires, I make a link to it. I would particularly like to commend our colleagues at the simple English Wiktionary who have made the job of linking more complex words so much easier. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Australia policy

Valid topic... but needs help. Anyone familiar with the subject wanna have a quick look, perhaps get it to a start-class/stub? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made a start - --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate -> Hatred

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it, but there are two articles about hate: Hate and Hatred.   Could any administrator be so kind as to delete Hatred? Then I could move Hate to Hatred as in enwikipedia. Thank you! Classical Esther♣ 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Lauryn (u • t • c) 02:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind help, Lauryn! Classical Esther♣ 03:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite welcome. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 03:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(←) Along the same lines, would it be all right to delete Truth so that True can be reworded and moved? SS✞(Kay) 07:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I was just about to bring it up but you were faster. :) Classical Esther♣ 08:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lauryn, for your quick response once again! Kay, I've moved True to Truth and reworded it slightly: you can find it here.   Good job everyone, Classical Esther♣ 08:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect pages

I hope the community will not think me wasting their time when I address them with a problem I have seen recently; which is, namely, many incorrect redirect pages. For instance (there are many others which I've seen, though I can't name them immediately just now), wind power (a very important subject) redirects to List of large wind farms which, it is easy to see, are two entirely different things; and solar power redirects to solar energy, though they, too, are very different. I know this is Simple English Wikipedia, but we should still try to be accurate. This creates more work and a waste of time for both users and administrators (like the above requests). Is is possible there could be a way to prevent this? Classical Esther♣ 11:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they aren't all the different, having a redirect to a similar subject when an actual article does not exist is actually a normal function of a wiki. By all means create those articles if you want. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments DJSasso. I will do so. There probably isn't a way to prevent a vague problem like this one. However, I thought I should state it just in case. Classical Esther♣ 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally we rely on people such as yourself to notice and create the article. I think the idea behind it is that its better to get some info to come up rather than a message saying the page doesn't exist. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you find a redirect that could clearly be an independent article, write a stub. Like I just did! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TRM. You did a great job! I'll follow your example. Classical Esther♣ 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On this day"

User:Buggie111 has done a great job showing that "On this day" can be kept up. I suggest that we look at seeing if we can get a consensus on whether to move forward with putting this project on the main page. Kansan (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're meaning the excellent work he's doing on this page? Thanks for bringing it up, Kansan. I'm not sure whether we should or not, because it is very interesting to know what happened on that day, but I fancy it would be hard to find one so quickly for every single day. DYK work goes rather slowly. I'd like to hear other opinions first. Should there be a straw poll? Classical Esther♣ 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out to Buggie111, work is going to need to be done to the articles as well. Right now he's just listing hooks, basically, but some of the articles don't have those dates/facts in them. That will definitely need to be done if we're hoping to put this on the front page. I'd also like to see a larger sample than just one week. I'd like to see where it's at in a month. Either way (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe it can be kept up, as we dont have the user base, and one newish editor doing it for a week is not proof we can keep it up. We can barely keep up with the DYK process, nevermind a process that requires us to keep it up to date every day. Our goal here is not to replicate english wikipedia. We have a much different goal. And as either way mentioned, none of those articles have those facts in them which is a central part of the on this day process. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Either way and Djsasso said, we need more time to determine whether this editor is 'stable' at editing for a while and if there's enough input in the process to make it updated more often. Let's just stick with our current weekly update until it is really needed. Nifky^ 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to anything which leads to unrestrained date-linking. Really significant dates only should be linked: some on Buggies page definitely do not qualify. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This

Hey all,

So I've been really busy with school and already I have done things I shouldn't have here, so for that I apologize. You guys have amazing opinions and I try to take all of them to heart. Please note that if you think you can add to the design in a constructive matter, I give you permission to do so. If you need help, you can contact me at my main page (link in the signature) or shoot me an e-mail if you like. I will try my best to come on and be active, but I need to know that I have some people here who support me. The primary reason why I left last time was because it just wasn't fun to make templates "nicer" (to me) anymore. Love and peace, obentomusubi 08:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun to see makeovers in the look of the wiki, so yeah I support what you do.--  † CR90  08:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I support your work here, too. You're an invaluable member. :) obentomusubi 09:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion straw poll!

I've done this before, but I'd like fresh, new opinions. How many people like the current VGA and GA icons and how many people think   and   could be possible alternatives? obentomusubi 09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too difficult for you, can you please provide with more choices. If not, then it is okay. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  is what the English Wikipedia uses for featured articles (they don't have an image for good articles). The Spanish Wikipedia uses the same thing, but for good articles they have  . The two I proposed are from the French articles. I'll try to find more for you. :) obentomusubi 09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  The Hebrew Wikipedia uses a variation of this for their featured articles. obentomusubi 09:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. I've set up a Straw Poll with these icons. Pmlineditor ∞ 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) obentomusubi 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGA icon

  1.   -Current
  2.   - English Wikipedia
  3.   - Hebrew Wikipedia
  4.   - Proposed icon
  5.  

GA icon

  1.   - Current
  2.   - Proposed icon
  3.   - Spanish Wikipedia
  4.   - Korean Wikipedia
  5.  
  6.   - German Wikipedia (L stands for lesenswert, A worthy read)
  7.   - Like the gold Ukrainian one above, but silver

Straw poll

Please indicate the number of the icon you are !voting for. (Example, VGA - 1; GA - 1 to retain the current icons). Comments are also welcome. After a week, a decision will be taken and the templates updated accordingly.
Okay, you're right. This is a hard choice to make, because what people like Eptalon and Either Way say do make sense - color blind people might get confused, ect - but I think that VGA-4,GA-2, the proposed ones, are good. Yes, they do look a bit "cartoony", but lots of children are supposed to use Simple English Wikipedia, too. They would probably enjoy these colorful stars more. And Fr33kman's comments certainly make sense. Classical Esther♣ 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry I'm changing my opinion so often, but now that new ones are added, I like the Ukranian ones. They seem to compromise eye appeal and un-cartoon-ishness, and look unique to Wikipedia. Classical Esther♣ 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • VGA-4, GA-2. Frankly, I've never liked the icons we have been using. The two icons from VGA and GA should take the same shape, imo, and it makes sense for the best to be gold, and the next best to be silver. The current GA icon is, frankly, stupid. What exactly does a sign in a circle say? A star is known to respresent quality and the best. Why not take the oppurtunity to make use of a person who has a real talent and update the dated, stale look of the wiki? fr33kman 15:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one of the key points to keep them very different is to help people who are colour blind. An identical design in different colours is more inaccessible to different designs in different colours. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • per Fr33kman. Well said. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • VGA-1, GA-4. I think these icons look better than the VGA-4 and GA-2 icons, for the latter are too cartoon-like. Megan|talkchanges 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current ones. As to fr33kman's comment about stale wiki, perhaps people don't think its stale. I actually find it refreshing that wikipedia doesn't partake in the horrendus trends that blight many other websites. Colour and style are too subjective to play a decent role in an encyclopedia. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto to this. Being "stale" is a bad way to put it. Being "consistent" is a better way to put it. Our readers are here for our content, not for our bells, whistles, and flashy gadgets. Either way (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While this is very true, Either way, a face lift doesn't hurt anyone every now and then. It may even increase attention.--  † CR90  22:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As pointed out above it can hurt, using multi colours can affect colourblind people, or as eptalon mentioned, people using black and white printing can't tell the difference between things. There are many more factors that go into design than just oh that looks nice. This is why wikipedia was created to be a simple black and white interface. If people really want to spruce it up I recommend downloading either the greasemonkey plugin or stylish plugins for their browsers, both of which allow you to alter the look of webpages to your desire. There are a tonne of "skins" for wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current ones. Eptalon raises a valid point. Nifky^ 22:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the VGA one, but change the GA one to any of the others. (I added one, only because I don't really understand why it's a plus sign.) SS✞(Kay) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • VGA-4, GA-2, like Fr33kman was so wise as to suggest. It would look very neat and very warm. ♥ Belinda ♥ 02:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you missed the section were it was noted that this combination of icons would cause problems for colour blind readers as they may not be able to differentiate between VGA and GA icons. Our current (different) icons prevent this from happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • VGA-5, GA-3--  † CR90  01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CR, isn't there also a silver puzzle piece for GA? If so, would you be so kind as to put it up (not that my vote changes, I still vote GA3) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Trails blazed) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I think more choices could be chosen.--  † CR90  10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas? Pmlineditor ∞ 10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Korean Wikipedia GA icon. :p It's not one of my favorites personally though. Classical Esther♣ 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out above, the icons should be chosen in such a way that they are different both in shape/form, and in color. This will help the color-blind, and also the otherwise visually-impaired. It will also mean that all those of you who still have a black-and-white printer can still tell the two apart on paper. If we have a star (1,2,4) as a VGA icon, this rules out star-like symbols for GAs (2,4). Other than that, I am fine with the current symbols. --Eptalon (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ugly now. Lauryn (u • t • c) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that, all I am saying that any solution we reach must have icons that do not attach any meaning to the color. That is ot say: printed in black and white, the difference between both symbols must be clear. This is easiest to do with different shapes. Please note: If anyone is talented enough to make new symbols, please go ahead. --Eptalon (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I had the imagination to do so I'd do so myself, Eppy. I may try anyway.--  † CR90  00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, probably, come to think of it. Do you think it's a little hard to see, though? SS✞(Kay) 09:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks VGA-ish. The color seems okay to my computer... Classical Esther♣ 10:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I personally think it looks fine. Easy to see for me. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, DJSasso, but then again, it's unique to Wikipedia...and since when people put their mouse on it, it says "This is a Very Good Article" in both the article and the talk page, I don't think people would get very confused. :) Classical Esther♣ 08:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

As far as a quick counting exercise is concerned, there seems no clear consensus whatsoever to change the status quo. So, unless anyone else has something extraordinary to bring to the discussion, I would consider this debate closed, and we'll stick with the icons we already have. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized

Is it just me, or do we not have that template? If we don't, could somebody create it, and also add it to the Articleissues blanket template? Thanks, Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncat, Griffinofwales (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there it is...please say it's also in multipleissues, because I don't think it was last I checked Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't mean this to sound as harsh as it might sound....but in the time it takes you to put that tag on an article, you could probably put it in a cat. -DJSasso (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I had done that, but they came up red. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I think it would be good if we could focus a little more on the sciences. It is nice to have an article about the latest single of a band, but for this Wikipedia to be useful, we need more scientific content. Just a thought, though; I know it's probably not the subject of most people want to write about. --Eptalon (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of articles may be interesting (maybe the links on the WP:HAVE biology section pages could be a good place to start). Yottie =talk= 21:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I'm looking for someone who is good with science-related/biology-related articles to do an article on Paranasal sinuses (see en:Paranasal sinuses). I could do a stub probably, but I think it can be written a lot better than I would do. So if anyone is looking for a science-like one to do, that's one I'm looking for. Thanks, Either way (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Eptalon for fulfilling this request!  :) Either way (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a stub, probably badly written; image may be useful too. :) --Eptalon (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My specialty is firmly in the social sciences (and I do think that this site is somewhat lacking in good geography articles), but I'll see what I can do. Kansan (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We alo lack in "social sciences" articles (basic economic theories is an example; psychology is probably another one). --Eptalon (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to help to some degree. I enjoy creating articles about insects, birds, and plants (but I have slowed down lately). I'll try to help as best as I can. Megan|talkchanges 01:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines

The project is growing, and we are seeing more pages on subjects that we now need to discuss making some notability guidelines. We have the general notability guideline... and with that, each page that we suspect may not be notable, but does not meet the notability quick delete criteria, we would need to discuss. I posit that now we could use some additional notability guidelines for software and sports figures. If you all could respond below in agreement or disagreement (that we need a guideline, or what we have is fine and need no change) then based off og the interest, I will draft a couple of changes for discussion. Basically before I draft, I want to know the interest so I don't waste my time, and everyone else's time. Thank you for looking, Jon@talk:~$ 20:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I am not the youngest any more, but an example of this is probably articles on "singles" or "albums" of bands. Unless the bands are well known, it does not make sense to have an article for each single of a band, esp. if it is a two-sentence article. --Eptalon (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think popular culture is a problem area all over WP, and v. weakly constrained by admins. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically we have all those guidelines, we use the same ones en does per our guideline that we use what en has when we don't have anything written here. So in this case we go by en:WP:ATHLETE and software generally falls under the plain WP:N. You just need to bring them over and simplify them. That being said, I don't know that we actually need the written out here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This week in history‎

Since this is on the Main Page now, it would probably be a good idea if we created a vetting process, criteria that the article should meet for being considered for inclusion, and so forth as well as a nomination page. I have no opinion either way on what these should be, but we should probably throw something together. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "extreme" to know what we're doing. Lauryn (u • t • c) 01:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... I mean, yes, we need the vetting... but please let up not make it where it takes days to process a hook.  :) You are correct, we need a process, but no an extreme one. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some process needs to be put in place. I'm looking at the "hooks" that are up there now, and only Uranus has a mention of the date in its article (without a source) and 1959 has a mention of the Barbie fact (without a source). None of the other articles has a mention of their date in history in them, especially not with a citation. (Actually, it looks like Uransus may). I think we need to have that if they are going to be on the main page. Either way (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Later tonight I'll source all the hooks that are currently displayed (unless someone else can help), and start filling for next week. Jon@talk:~$ 02:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, we should use the same rules for DYK and This Week in History
  • The article linked to the item in bold contains the date, which is covered by an external reference
  • In any given week, a main article (in bold) can either occur as DYK or as This Week in History, but not in both.
  • There are a maximum of seven items for the whole week, there should be at least three
  • Hook texts may not contain red links
What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ideas. I think maybe about seven a week, one per day. Buggie111 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi. Anyone can move content from w:March 2010 Chile earthquake to Pichilemu earthquake I can't from my cell. Thanks in advance, Diego (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it to your userspace to simplify, but not to another mainspace article as I have no idea how long it would sit. Hope this is satisfactory. Cheers, Lauryn (u • t • c) 05:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
user:MisterWiki/March 2010 Chile earthquake. Enjoy, Lauryn (u • t • c) 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) --Diego (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Lauryn (u • t • c) 16:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel prize template

I have a question/concern over at Template talk:Nobelprize. Kansan (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed Lauryn (u • t • c) 04:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! I had no clue how to even approach it. Kansan (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This week in history

Template:This week in history Go nominate stuff! :) Jon@talk:~$ 17:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we get something else instead. What about a red box? Synergy 17:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried many times to place a red box around the "current hooks" section to let folks know this is where finshed hooks go when they are transcluded. I fail at the coding here. Jon@talk:~$ 17:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image use policy

Just a note. I have adjusted the image use policy to permit short term, free, local images for purposes of illustrating bugs and whatnot. These images that are locally uploaded are not permitted in articles. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

Is it possible to write a script or bot that automatically removes blocked users from VIP? It's done this way at enwiki AIV. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a helper AIV bot, let me see if I can't snatch the code. Jon@talk:~$ 18:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing a new WikiProject

I am starting a new WikiProject called WikiProject Simplification. I believe that far too many articles here could stand to be simplified more and to use more Basic English. I want to make that more of a focus for my editing, and I invite everybody else to join in. Kansan (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I really want to join, but I've already joined so much wikiprojects I have to keep active as a member in them, like my own, and Ian's, and Esther's, and other than that, vandal fighting, stub fixing and sorting... Well, anyway, I'm sorry. After my coming exam at May is finished successfully (please pray for me!), I think I will have more time and maybe I can join. Thankyou, Kansan, for joining my wikiproject, anyhow! ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note everything said by Eptalon & myself under 'Word lists' above. Basic English was always weak on science, and now is weaker still. It won't do to substitute Basic words for scientific terms. That's more than half the problem we face on science pages. About the need for more simplification, well, yes, providing accuracy and correctness don't go out the window! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well, I'll just join it anyway! I can't resist the wonderful project. But please don't be vexed if I am not too active! ♥ Belinda ♥ 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that there already is one. User:Project/WikiProject Simplification -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks. Simplification is this wiki's main goal. I hate to think that we need a project and participants to perform our goal here. But if you must, combine both projects and move it into the project namespace. Synergy 12:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that we need a project for this, but since the stub thing has worked, I thought this would interest people in doing some real simplifying work rather than commenting in discussions and participating in drama (I don't want to attack anyone, but if I did, sorry). Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that WikiProjects were not allowed to be placed in the mainspace. Kansan (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, everyone. I'm sorry for wasting your time, but I have a question about disambiguation pages...can you just copy-paste disambiguation pages from English Wikipedia, even if most of them are just red links? Or do you just manually write down all the articles that are already created with the same name? Classical Esther♣ 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the same method of attribution you would do for any article you brought over. So you have to say you brought it from en etc. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Simple English Wikipedia isn't necessarily supposed to have the same scope as the English Wikipedia, by nature, it will have fewer articles, and I think that for the seek of keeping things as non-confusing as possible for the target audience, we probably should not list every possible meaning of a term, especially if there are a whole bunch that are unlikely to have any article on here written about them any time soon. So on disambiguation pages, I think we should try to focus on listing those terms that either have articles already or that are very prominent and should have articles written. Either way, there are judgment calls involved and not just indiscriminate copying. Kansan (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind help, everyone. It's hard to "simplify" disambig pages, so I was a little confused...:p So I just need to attribute it in the same way as English Wikipedia and be careful so that there won't be too many useless red links? Classical Esther♣ 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users asking reference questions

Lately, I've noticed that we've had a number of users asking questions, either in the mainspace or on talk pages, as if for homework help or for other reference purposes. Is there maybe a way that we could direct these users to the English Wikipedia's Reference Desk, which would be far better equipped to help them? Maybe a link somewhere in our Help section or something? Kansan (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often delete those pages with a link to the RefDesk. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe putting such a link on their talk pages would be best, then. Kansan (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my name is seema sharma. my title is speak in english very good.i know english but not speak in english.so i want improve my english,

text

How do you put text on the left, center, and right sides of the page? Kind of like how you do with pics with the right|thumb template. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 00:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you can center text using <center></center> but I'm not sure about left or right...--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see this question go unanswered for so long. To align text to the right, I typically use the following code:
<div align="right">Text goes here</div>
This is what that looks like:
Text goes here
EhJJTALK 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your help! But there is still a small problem. Is it possible to have them in the same line? I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 15:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much more easier is using table in this case:
{|style="width:100%"
|-
|align="left"|aligned by left
|align="center"|aligned by center
|align="right"|aligned by right
|}
looks like:
aligned by left aligned by center aligned by right
Zorg (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement...

Article viewership is disappointingly low for simple. Can nothing be done to advertise our wiki amongst our target audiences? Is there anything in place for audience research? Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get xkcd to write another comic? Anyway, seriously, you know how there's those interwiki things that look like
 
Wikibooks Cookbook has a recipe/article on:

There should be one for Simple English and a bot adding that tag to all our VGA and GA's articles on EnWp. What do you think about that? Also, I think the issue is the few parents who do know about this place don't send their kids here because it's not censored. So what, exactly, is the target audience of this wikipedia? How are we going to reach them? SS✞(Kay) 07:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem nobody seems to be able to solve. Surely there's a way to advertise SEWP on enwp or on other websites? Yottie =talk= 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen editors add a redirect to another wiki in their signatures. Like: Example (Talk|Contribs)Whats New? or Example (Talk|Esperanto?)
Of course, per guidelines, it should go to a local page first, then to the other wiki as soft redirect. If a number of editors here are active on other wikis, this may or may not help to draw in more people. -Avicennasis @ 13:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting bot

I was wondering about a stub sorting bot. Can anyone give me advice?--PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against any stub sorting bot. --Diego (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specially because of the fact that it is a bot. --Diego (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this? Kansan (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of having a bot sort stubs; so we don't have to. But getting it to run, auto run, is a difficult task. I am assuming this bot would be semi automated correct? I've used AWB in the past to perform semi-automated stub sorting. But it is very tedious. Synergy 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, semi-automated sounds better. --Diego (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WT:BOT#PiRSquared17Bot. The problem right now is not with the presence of the bot, rather it has got to do with the bot re-categorising the stubs from computer science stubs to technology stubs. Like scream said, the two stubs mean different things. What is your rationale for re-categorising them? Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Chen, yes, I have no problem at all with the bot. It is the task that needs discussed. If you can address Chen, and the community is ok with the task, the bot gets the approval, and an unblock. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 02:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a "CS-stub?"--PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edits made by the bot, I fail to see where it changed any from computer science stubs to technology stubs. All edits were in changing stub to tech-stub. I think that, if this bot gets approved it would have to consult with the Stub Wikiproject as to which stub type is accurate before making changes. Aside from that, looking at this as an initial test run, it seems to be working fine. Synergy 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I re-propose the bot?--PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that bot was not so much its operation, but rather the fact that technology is a very wide field; While it might be adequate for an optical drive, would you classify things like "decidability", "algorithm" and the like as technology?--Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit template doesn't exist?

At least in any variation that I could see..

Search didn't find anything... I would be happy to bring this over from enwp if it decided it's needed. -Avicennasis @ 08:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, but that is for fully-protected (admin-edit) pages. I was thinking of en:Template:Request_edit, to requests that an edit be made to an article that the user below does not want to make because of a conflict of interest. -Avicennasis @ 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. In my opinion, not necessary. Recent changes is slow enough that most edits that anyone makes are reviewed by someone; all they have to do is make a request on the talkpage and I really don't think a template is necessary. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Good point; I had not considered that. Thanks! -Avicennasis @ 08:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

I hope this isn't too much to ask: How do you make a bot? I have always wanted to make one but when I go to Wikipedia:Bots, it doesn't show anything on how to make one. Its probably pretty complex so you don't have to give me every single code I have to use, but maybe a link that will lead me to some actual instructions? Thx, I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what type of bot you want. The most common bot is Pywikipediabot, you can read the instructions about using it here. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to have one that adds refs? BTW, thx for the speedy reply and the link. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 15:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well possibly, that being said, you would have to program your own. Bots are really just computer programs that their operators wrote to do something. I don't recommend people running a bot who aren't good at deciphering code. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty good at deciphering codes. I think I would be able to figure it out if I knew how to get started. I have absolutely no idea how to even approach to start, that is why a link with step by step instructions would be most helpful to me (if there is one). I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is sort of what I am getting at, you actually have to use a programming language and program one, there really isn't a step by step guide. The most common language used is python. But others languages have been used to create them. You could get someone else to do the heavy lifting for you and program on. But personally I don't think its a good idea to run a bot you can't personally fix bugs in by changing the programming. -DJSasso (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What language are you considering coding in? Are you comfortable with python, php, java, all or none of the above? EhJJTALK 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
python is good. I've been reading a bit about it in the link Pmlineditor gave me. It doesn't look to hard to learn. :) I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 11:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if it will help, but Wikiversity has some info on learning python here. -Avicennasis @ 04:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thx Avicennasis. I'll check it out. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 13:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I am hoping to learn python myself. -Avicennasis @ 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_79&oldid=8874251"