Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 13

Admin

Can I request adminship? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You may, although at this time, it would be highly unlikely for you to have a successful request. Usually users have three or more months of editing and 1000 + edits before having a successful request. --Isis§^(talk) 15:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Although, you've been here for more than 3 months, you are still below 1000 edits which is a community-agreed requirement for an RfA (as Isis stated above). But only by some unknown reasons, Majorly got adminship while still below 1000 edits. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

About three months ago, Ionas has shown a perfect knowledge of User's tools while modifying the presentation of the Israeli national anthem. About Majorly, we both had the same number of edits when we were candidates. He passed... I failed. Final votes will tell us whether Ionas is a good candidate or not. If no sysops nominate him, I'll do it myself in twenty four hours. ONaNcle 04:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

ONaNcle, not to offense you, but Majorly was a user who was very familiar with the policies of this wiki and was trusted by the enitre community despite his low edit count. But you were pretty unfamiliar with those policies (i guess as some admins noted) and lacked any trust or support from other users. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Qwertyuioops!

Which colors look better? The ones on my userpage, or my sockpuppet Qwertyuioops!' page? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 02:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you make us search or will you give a link? --rimshot^talk 12:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lorem Ipsum text at Qwertyuioops!' user page. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Between those, I would personally prefer the sockpuppet's colors. I'd really prefer even less "flashy" colors in general, but that's a matter of personal taste, of course. --rimshot^talk 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Now see my userpage. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 06:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Running out of editors?

Hello Community, This wikipedia currently has about 30 active named contributors; about half of them (currently 16) are Admins (Sysops/Bureaucrats). If the trend continues, we will soon have the first Wikipedia where all editors have Sysop status. It might therefore be useful to promote the existence of this Wikipedia a little more. Of ocurse, these are just my thoughts. Thinkgs might not be as bad as they appear to be. --Eptalon 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here slightly (very slightly) applies to this, as far as promoting the exsistence of this wiki goes. Adding interwiki links to articles on other wikis would be one step. I can think of quite a few users that aren't admins (Phaedriel, Ionas68224, me, etc.) and I'd say we get maybe 2-3 new users a month that actually stay here. I doubt that we'll have 100% admins anytime soon. --Isis§^(talk) 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As to yourself, I doubt you will stay a non-admin for very much longer. All I was trying to say was that we have an unusually high percentage of Admins, mainly because there are few non-admin(regular/named contributors) --Eptalon 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right, actually. --Isis§^(talk) 15:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When comparing the # of admins to other smaller communities, we seem to have a ton of sysops compared to them. Anyways, most of our admins were previously active editors who were probably the only active users in the simplewiki like during '04 and '05. Now since most of those editors (except a few) are admins, pretty soon, this wiki will outnumber the number of sysops versus the number of active non-admin contributors. But we still have enough bureaucrats. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 17:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of those admins aren't active, such as (IMO) User:J Di and User:TBC. --Isis§^(talk) 17:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

User:J Di was a semi-active editor who barely passed his second RfA. User:TBC was acive in the past until his recent decline in activity. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon's thoughts almost reflect mine in every sense; just today, I was thinking about how small our community here is, and the little time most new editors remain active before declining in their activity levels and/or migrate to other projects. Personally, as an active editor at English Wikipedia, I was attracted to this Wiki by the interwiki links, and by observing how much work still needs to be done here. I don't think it's a bad thing that we have a big admin per non admin ratio; if anything, that only means that most regulars have the ability to perform maintenance tasks, and that's great when said users are trusted members of the community, as it is our case. The true problem is, we're attracting few article creators/writers/editors. Every way we can think to bring more traffic from other Wikis that we regularly edit is sorely needed now. All the best, Phaedriel - 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To increase the number of interwiki links, you can play around for a little while with the Interwiki-Link Checker. It only catches identically-named pages, but it's a start. --rimshot^talk 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The en wiki has a huge traffic of tens of thousands of non-admin contributors, most who work in a specific type of subject or job. Also, it has over a 1000 admins which make the en wiki more complex. But the simplewiki still does need a lot of more editors here. Also about admins, I think there should be no limit of the # of admins like they do with bureaucrats because as long as a user qualifies and is trusted to be an admin, he/she shouldn't be denied to it. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I have a suggestion; if we can't attract any editors here, we could have the admins to be editors as well as sysops like User:Eptalon for example. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the # of admins compared to the # of non admins matter it just means there will be more admins to help out, but the nuber of users we have is a problem I think all we can do is add more inter-wiki links. Oysterguitarist 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Inviting friends... and IP's

I can invite some of my friends to come edit, if we want to enlarge our population. --Lizix 01:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --Isis§^(talk) 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I contribute inside Simple since 2004 with the same IP; I saw in 2004 no reason to contribute more than on other wikis (a dozen) and even to login. Your small community needs to ATTRACT NEW REGULAR USERS. Very few will stay hoping becoming a sysop. Another way to attract is to give them REWARDS. For instance, allow them to open, inside the main Simple pedia, a short page categorized as Contributor on Simple biography and titled with their name and surname; of course, you'll have to vote about how many edits to fulfill this reward. Anyway, it should be far less that the admin compulsory number of edits. 82.224.88.52 09:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Long rant to follow - Div'd to save page space. -- Creol(talk) 07:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Personaly I can not imagine a better group of people than one were every member is trusted enough to have full capabilities. Idealy, 100% admins just means that everyone here is fully trusted equally. This is never a bad thing.

Yes, we have a low new editor count and that can be an issue, but in May 2007 (the last current statistics) we had a 27% increase in editors who edited over 100 edits that month as well as an 83% increase in total edits for the month. Those are some of the largest increases we have ever had. We do get new editors all the time though many of them are "Walled garden" editors. As such they tend to get the "we focus on core articles here, we aren't big enough to expand to that" warning and they wander off.

Last I checked, we have an article for every item on the "list of articles every wiki should have" list although several are either totally off topic (the article covers one definition of the term in a relatively dicdef aspect but not the more encyclopedic definition of the word) or a useless stub just created to say we have something on that topic (check many of the city articles for US state capitals as well as country capitals in Africa not including the ones I started). We do have core article issues, mainly expanding one or two sentence stubs into even a hint of a real article, but we should also be open to any editor who has a personal niche they want to develop.

While new editors may start with their own walled garden, over time they are likely to expand into other aspects which will help round out the wiki as a whole. Our own focus on what needs to be here is at times fighting against our need to get more people that are willing to help us make this wiki the best it can be. Our own guidelines of what this wiki is not (not news, not pop culture) is fighting against drawing in more people.

Our rules say we should not have articles about television shows, sports teams, bands, software, websites, or fictional characters and setting but in many reguards, these are the topics people are looking for information on. Yes the life of Czar Nicholas II is important, but many more people are going to be looking for information about Jessica Alba or "The Price is Right" (current news announcement on the change of host made it a top searched for term) on a daily basis. These are the people that will be coming to a site which supplies solid information on the most searched for terms. These are the people who will most likely decide to stick around and add information. These are the topics we need to be more flexible with to be more inviting to new editors.

Wikipedia is not paper. We have room to include less than stellar topics as long. We tend to fight against topics that are "not right" for the encyclopedia. While they may not be right, as long as they are not wrong (libel, false, discrimatory/attack) it is not like we have a shortage of available space. If editor A wants to play with their walled garden, atleast (s)he is a lot more likely to become a productive editor over time than an editor who is told his articles are not welcome here just because we do not feel they are needed. -- Creol(talk) 07:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, Creol. Maybe people have forgotten what was actually said when we implemented WP:CORE: we focus on core articles and heavily encourage their development, yet non-core articles still have some value and must be kept. We never said that we would delete non-core articles, or warn people about making them. The messages we were originally leaving for people were probably a bit friendlier, and more along the lines of "Very good! Now for a bonus point, improve our core articles!" rather than "Urgh, what good is that crap you've just posted?". Our policy has never said that we shouldn't have articles about TV series, the latest video games etc - it simply said that these should not be our priority for improvement. The guideline says to avoid making non-core articles because more experienced people wanting to make the best use of their time would be better directing their efforts towards core articles - but non-core articles should never be deleted unless it is really screaming "delete me" at you. Example (thank last night's vandalism for the inspiration):

• "Sonic Riders is a cool game with a hedgehog in it made by sega". Created by an IP user with no other edits. - delete (via RfD), as it is not worth the time and effort to improve it up to anything good. Leave a friendly message welcoming them, but the chances are they won't stick around, it's just random rubbish from an IP just dropping in. The article won't be maintained by anyone once they've gone.
• "'''Sonic Riders''' is a computer game that is part of the [[Sonic the Hedgehog]] series, created by [[SEGA]]..." . Assume they've made a reasonable attempt at doing the categories, and/or interwikis, stubbing it etc. Created by a registered user, or an IP that has shown some interest in sticking around. Keep, because even though people may not ever find or use the article, it's in a reasonable state if they do, and even if it takes a couple of minutes of improvement to get it up to scratch, the user has shown that they are interested in editing here. The chances are, that editor will help maintain that article, as they are interested in that topic.

If I'm remembering all this correctly, WP:CORE was never meant to restrict new users. It was meant for more experienced users to show them what they should focus on to make the best use of their efforts. We agreed at the time that non-core articles would still have some value, and that WP:CORE should never be the sole basis for deleting. Remember, WP:CORE is a guideline, not a policy. We encourage people that have settled in here to focus on more "core topics", but if they want to carry on making in-depth articles about every Sonic game that has ever existed, we let them. WP:CORE cannot be used to force people into editing core topics, they can edit whatever they like, so long as they make a reasonable attempt at doing the wiki stuff correctly. Archer7 - talk 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Today my first ever OUT-CORE creation was removed by-passing the RfD procedure. It's therefore hard to believe your community wants to welcome new users. It was an article in Category:Regular contributor on Simple and it started this way : Known as Lavoro sporco on his original wiki, Dario Vettore is a multilingual Veneto Italian contributor. He has been nominated at important posts on three different wikipedias, including the bureaucrat one on Simple wikipedia... 82.224.88.52 16:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

don't believe wikipedia users need mainspace pages, especially since they have their own userpages. It's highly unlikely that a reader would search for a wikipedia user. :) Before creating an article, check to see if it is on english wikipedia (or another wikipedia). If it isn't, it will most likely be deleted. Cheers, --Isis§^(talk) 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well that's a little different. WP:CORE is still seperate from the notability rules. We cannot accept biographies of contributors as articles. As great a user as Vector is, I'm afraid he still doesn't qualify for an article. Being a good contributor to a website just doesn't make you notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Archer7 - talk 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Check to see if it is on English wikipedia (-: That's what I did with Alison Wheeler, another Category:Regular contributor on Simple, even if I guess she is less famous on Simple than Dario Vettore 82.224.88.52 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Known as political activist in his own country, Alison Wheeler is a founder member of the London chapter of the w:Lesbian Avengers and an eclectic contributor on wikis. She has been nominated at important posts on three different wikipedias, including inside the Board of the main wikipedia. http://www.alisonwheeler.org/org/biography.php

She would be notable without her involvement in Wikipedia. In fact, the only mention of her activities with wikis in the EN article is that she is the chair of Wikimedia UK, which is sort of relevant. Their actual positions on wiki don't really count for much. Remember that admin, bureaucrat etc are all just extra tools, not really important 'positions'. As bureaucrat, my opinions should carry no more weight in any decisions than anyone else. The same is for Vector, he isn't really more 'important' than anyone else here. Archer7 - talk 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How many people visit our site each day ? LIAM ! 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

back to the main topic again

I also Div' my comment to save space:

Well, I'd like us to shift back to what Eptalon said in the beginning. Well, when compared to the number of active editors, the ratio of people with sysop access here is higher than that of many of the other sister wikis (of same size or larger).

To be frank, when I first started editing here, I had a similar feeling of "See! People come here and edit for a while, and then they request adminship!" and I questioned myself if people are aiming a better Wikipedia, or aiming their promotion to sysop level. I understand what Croel meant when he said it is not bad to have a community where all people are administrators when they are all trusted enough. But there is a difference between what is "not bad" and what is "needed".

Being a sysop is not a power or a position, but it is not merely a different level of access as well. It brings responsibility. I'm an administrator on a different Wikipedia, and I have a local installation of MediaWiki in which I am a bureaucrat! I can install the required extensions and make myself a local Steward even! (kidding) But what is the big deal? I believe, it is not the technical part which is important about being an administrator (e.g. we never vote for adminship of a person based on his experience in using MediaWiki); it is the communitive part and the assignment of responsibilities which is important to us.

When I vote in support of adminship of a person whom I trust, I expect him/her to spend a bigger proporition of the time (s)he spends on this wiki, on fighting vandalism, closing AfDs, etc. It implies, I'm asking him/her to spend less time on editing articles (assuming the total time (s)he spends on Wikipedia remains static). I don't say we shouldn't have any more admins. I say, we should reach a point where every body understands that it is not the administrative activities which we need most, but the normal user activities. In my eyes, Eptalons contribs on African countries' capitals' articles is much more appreciated than his posting a warning on the talk page of a vandal. If he didn't do the later, another user would have done it shortly, but it is the former which people barely do here! I would like to quote what Snake311 said above:

if we can't attract any editors here, we could have the admins to be editors as well as sysops

Pardon me for my long message. I'm aware long messages are hard to read. Yet I felt I had to say this.

With my best wishes to Simple English Wikipedia and its contributors, - Huji ^reply 12:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I am mentioned again and again. (Do I need to feel famous?). If you look here,you will see that about 10% of my edits are admin-related (delete, restore , block, unblock, protect,unprotect). Last month (June) I had 849 edits. About 70 of those were spent in admin-related work, for the remaining 780, I did not need admin privileges. This is a small Wikipedia. I therefore think it is important to get new decent-quality articles (even stubs). Often, when I delete articles (which have been flagged as quick-deletes) I do not warn those that created them. This might be lenient. But if those who created them are vandals, what they think they need is attention. So if you give them attention, they won. Another example. The user 24.17.48.241 has done 758 edits (the last in February 07), without creating an account. As far as I can see those were not vandal-edits. So by those edits he or she probably helped this Wikipedia more than by warning vandals (or welcoming users..). All I was trying to say in my original post was Do not expect this project to flourish with 30 active editors. Whether we get the additional editors by inciting registered users to edit, or by attracting new editors, is irrelevant. You also do not need adminship to be respected by the community, contributing regularly (in a non-vandal way) also does the job.--Eptalon 12:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Creol: Having a high admin-to-nonadmin ratio is a good thing -- it means there are lots of good, trusted people! Ideally everyone has admin status because everyone is responsible enough to use it well. Also, the guideline should not say "avoid writing non-core articles". If an article is outside the mandate of the Wikipedia (non-notable enough to delete) that's one thing. Otherwise, people should be encouraged to write all kinds of articles -- whatever they feel like writing. And in addition they can be especially encouraged to write core articles. --Coppertwig 13:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

City bot

(P.S. Our city articles are not to high-quality. We should have a bot that adds the population of each city to the article. Is it possible to have one ?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.gloucester (talk • contribs) 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to have a bot that adds the population of every city. Well, maybe if it's programmed to go to a website which has the population, but I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to interact with non-Wikimedia websites. Panda Bear 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In theory it would be possible to write such a bot. It would need to be able to parse text, and look for the typical sentences to then extract the number. I do think however, it is much easier to simply go through all the short city articles, and make them longer by adding this information manually. --Eptalon 12:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The greatest problem I see: how would the bot detect wether a city already has population information. It could be in a city infobox, in a custom infobox or in the text. Also, if there is an infobox without pop. info, the bot should add to the box. If there is no such box, the bot should add it to the text, preferably in the right position, and not just at the end. To summarize: adding the information would be quite hard to do automatically. Retrieving information, on the other hand, wouldn't be quite that hard. There are census databases for many countries which can be read by a bot. I know, for example, that on the German Wikipedia the populations of many cities are regularly updated in this way. --rimshot^talk 12:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicdef

What should we do with a page with {{dicdef}} on its page, which has a page on simple wikitionary? Should we request for its speedy deletion? - Huji ^reply 11:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article here doesn't have anything to add to the wiktionary article, then I guess you can. Often, however, it may add something. I don't know whether it would be a breach of the GFDL to just merge it over without attributing the original authors. For proper attribution, you would have to follow the transwiki process, as I did for the number articles. Finally, not all articles with {{dicdef}} are pure dictionary definitions. Therefore, I would prefer using WP:RFD. --rimshot^talk 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rimshot, if I'm not wrong, to move the data with its edit history, import access is required. For the same reason, it is not likely that we can transwiki the article ourselves with full attribution of all edit history. Please correct me if I'm wrong. - Huji ^reply 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To be more precise, I really am eager to help getting rid of all these dicdefs. I can do that much I can do as a normal user, if you teach me ;) - Huji ^reply 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to move the complete history. Read the page to which I linked, especially the heading Begin transwiki. You only need to add information about the editors of the transwikied page. To do this, you can just copy and paste the article history. --rimshot^talk 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine! I will start tommorow, I guess. - Huji ^reply 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicdef again

Pages like this have redlinks for words. This results in temptations in creating a dictionary like article about them, to make them blue links. Then we have to go through the whol process of marking the word as {{dicdef}} then transwiki'ing that, and then marking it for quick deletion, and then deleting it! I think a lot time would be saved if we would change at least some of the links like this. Wikitionary is surely a better place to find the dicdefs; in case we had an encyclopedic article about that word (for example bedroom) one can change the link back to Wikipedia page.

I suggest all verbs to be linked to Wikitionary. What do you think? - Huji ^reply 19:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that if an encyclopedic article cannot be made for it, a link should be made to wiktionary. But that's only if the word is relevant to the article's subject. --Isis§^(talk) 19:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Part of the process of deleting dicdef pages that have been transfered to Simple Wiktionary is to relink all pages that refer to that page to have them link to SW instead. While new links will eventually crop up linking to those terms here, most of redlinks get cleared out. Many of the pages that I delete in this way are linked to a page in my userspace so I can monitor if they get recreated as well as randomly check what links to them to clear out more redlinks before the pages get recreated.

Many of the terms in BE850 should be wiktionary entries only. The verbs are the most likely ones, with adjectives coming in a close second. If the term does not have an encyclopedic meaning (for example: Car/automobile is BE850, but it has a history that is encyclopedic) then it should be on wiktionary and not here. Most of the BE850 is already included in wiktionary.

The topic has been the subject of RfD (here) and is an ongoing process of removal and cleanup of dictionary articles. -- Creol(talk) 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Archives

To help navigate through the archives for Simple talk and Requests for deletion, I created subpages under each one (ST and RfD) that include links to all the archives for the pages. The subpages were transcluded into each of the related archive pages as well as the main page itself. This should help looking through the archives for a specific conversation since you can go from one page to the next rather than having to go back to the main page each time to get to the next page in line. -- Creol(talk) 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lily Allen

Hello. On the article Lily Allen, It has a list of awards she has been nominated for/won. User:Liam.gloucester thinks Lily Allen dresses well, so deleted where it said she won the worst dressed award. I have hidden the list for now to avoid an edit war. I wanted to get an outside opinion: should the awards be in the article? I would put this on the Lily Allen talk page, but thought it would be seen here. --Isis§^(talk) 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

At the en wiki, almost all celebrities all have a section or seperate article listing all the awards nomiated or won by that person. I think its is okay. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that award, but if it is a notable award, it should be added there. Otherwise (i.e. if the award is given by a non-notable group) we shouldn't insist on that. Thus, it would be a good idea to add a reference (either on the artile or on the talk page) about the notability of the award. - Huji ^reply 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the award was from a notable UK magazine and included on as such on her en:wp page along with other awards from the same magazine (and bonus points for a UK magazine reporting on a UK artist), the award is just a notable as the more positive awards that magazine bestowed on her. Just to remove an award because an editor does not believe she deserved it is blatant POV. It would be akin to refusing to accept that Halle Berry got a Razzie award for Catwoman just because you don't accept she deserved it. NME selected her as worst dressed for 2007. It is encyclopedic information and should not be removed just because someone doesn't think they were right in their choice. -- Creol(talk) 06:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, that is NOT encyclopedic information. Why is that important? Who cares if she won an award via a semi-credible UK magazine for the way some people think she dresses ? LIAM ! 00:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And I really don't see why there should be an edit war over one little thing that nobody would notice should it be deleted. LIAM ! 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If being nominated for an NME award is notable, then winning one should be even more so. It does not really matter which one. Also, the NME is one of the most notable music magazines, not "semi-credible", as you like to call it. --rimshot^talk 09:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bold or bold and italic

When I come across articals I see that the first mention of the word is either bolded or bolded and italic, does anybody else think we should go with one or the other? Oysterguitarist 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be bold, not bold italic. If you see bold italic, just change it. Also, not to be uncivil, it's article. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks for the spelling correction I usually spell that wrong. Oysterguitarist 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the topic is a work of art, for example, a book, movie, television show, album or song, then it should be both bolded and italicized. The first reference to a topic should be bolded, and any reference to a work of art should be italicized. -- Creol(talk) 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A little correction, songs should instead be inside quotations. The title of the article should be bolded, then quotations inserted around them. RaNdOm26 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

These should be described in the manual of styles, shouldn't they? - Huji ^reply 14:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why

The footers on every page link to complex articles on the main Wikipedia on stuff like USA charity tax law? Doesn't seem too helpful to me. --BozMoBozMo at En 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...good point, but I don't think it really matters. --Isis§^(talk) 19:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be there for legal reasons, and they shouldn't be simplified. - Huji ^reply 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple wikipedia?

--Lizix 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple wikipedia only refers to simple english, yet the link is simple. Not simple.en, but simple. What if someone created a site on simple maori or simple dutch? Simple yoruba, etc, need I go on. My point is clear, shouldn't we change our name? --Lizix 19:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that there will be any more simple wikis any time soon. If there were, I guess they would be like simple.an or whatever the language link is. Anyway, it's a little late to change it. --Isis§^(talk) 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One more question. How do you personalise your signature? --Lizix 19:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to click on the "my settings" link which appears on top of all pages. There you should enable raw signature, and provide the appropriate code to customize it. This is the code I have used for my current signature: - [[User:Huji|Huji]] ^{[[User talk:Huji|<span style="color:green">reply</span>]]}. - Huji ^reply 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to get the html tags right, though. They have to be in the right order or the signature won't work. --Isis§^(talk) 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

One would have to wonder why a simple dutch wiki would want to use the term simple at all. The Dutch wiki does not use Dutch, It uses the Dutch term for its name not the english one. The same would be the case for Simple Dutch, they would likely use "Eenvoudig" ("simple" in Dutch) rather than use the english version of their name. The only issue would be with languages where simple means the same in both that language and English (French and Spanish fall into this category). These could be solved by just using abbreviations such as each other language uses for its name or variations ( ie. simp:, frsimp: essimp: ). -- Creol(talk) 01:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The category that had the chance of becoming a simple French wikipedia was called "Français facile". --rimshot^talk 09:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In French [1] and Nederlands [2] there are "Vikidia" projects: similar to Simple projects but more for "kids" (children), so they're not exactly the same as Simple projects. --Coppertwig 12:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Simplified project pages

I was working on Help:Archiving_a_talk_page and I noticed there are links to page (like Wikipedia:Talk pages) which are not yet added to Simple English Wikipedia. We have this general assumption for policies and guidelines that we should use English Wikipedia's if we don't have them on Simple English Wikipedia. However, I think it would be a good idea to simplify some of them (other than those already done) and add them here. Also, there are pages in Wikipedia namespace which are not policies or guidelines (like Wikipedia:Talk pages) which I think should be simplified and added.

I think I can do the majority of it, but I first need to have general support behind this task. - Huji ^reply 09:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I support very much. I'm too tired of redlinks to important things like how to use the User:, Talk:, User talk: Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, and main spaces appropriately. There is not enough detail. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Adminship, again

I have decided it might be time to run for adminship, because as of Interiot's tool, I currently have over 700 edits in Simple English WIkipedia. Should I run now? I'm not sure. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently have about 65% of your edit in user-related (User/User-talk) namespaces, about 220 edits are in main/Wikipedia namespaces; In comparison, I have around 80% there, Isis is at around 72% (mainspace edits of total); Welcoming users, and the sociable side of WP are very nice, but those things are not something you might need admin tools for. So in short, focus a little more on Encyclopedic content (ie. Main, Wikipedia, Template, Category namespaces). When you ratio of those edits to total is at least at 50% (might be low), or User/User-talk don't make up more than 20% of the total, I think you might stand a chance at convincing others that you need those tools. At the moment, this will be hard. (Please not this is not something personal; but we need some ham on the bone, to be able to judge if the bone is a good one). (And as always, other opinions may vary). --Eptalon 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take your time about running for adminship. You still currently have below 1000 edita which is a minimum reqirement that was agreed upon the community here. Also most of your edits are basically in the User and User talk section, which also indicates that although you do get along and socialize with other wikipdians, you don't focus on creating/expanding articles and learning the policies required for an admin. Not to sound harsh or anything, but just to pinpoint some of the things you could possibly improve on. Cheers:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 18:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be responding to an old discussion, but I want to get my message across. I do not think the goal of all editors here should be to achieve admin status. There's no need to rush into it. It's really no big deal. Sure the extra tools are useful, but you do not have to have them to be a good editor. It's really more of a status thing, IMO. So, Ionas, please do not rush into this. :) thanks, --Isis§^(talk) 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

I would like to invite you to have a look at this page where I have collected some information about Simple English Wikipedia. Please help me with your comments and suggestions. - Huji ^reply 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible new main page

For easy reference, here is the link to the page being discussed: User:Tygartl1/Main Page

Since we are in the process of getting enough very good articles to add a new section to the front page, I thought I would go ahead and propose a layout for our new front page. The new front page, whatever it may be, will go into effect shortly after we have 10 very good articles. I have made a few other visual and content changes, mainly the links just below the welcome. I hope the community will look at my idea for a main page and make changes or suggest possibilities. (P.S. India is just in there as an example. I don't necessarily mean for it to be our first featured article.)· Tygartl1^·talk· 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the layout you've created but it seems so much as if you've simply just added in another section. Nothing else to say, I was just expecting something similar like en wiki's main page. But it is still a good start since we only have 4 VGAs (very good articles):) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you rather have something like the english wikipedia page? Oysterguitarist 18:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know enough about the code to start from scratch. You're right, most of my changes were pretty minor, and then of course I added another section. I like how our main page is not exactly like en:wiki. I wouldn't mind perhaps a smaller heading a little more similar to en:wiki. Another thing I'm not sure we really need is the "Knowledge groups" section. Maybe we could do something similar to en:wiki where they have a separate List of topics page, and maybe link to that page from the main page. I'm open to a lot of different options, I just feel like this is something we should be discussing because we'll probably have 10 VG articles in the next month or 2 (I hope!) · Tygartl1^·talk· 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the "Very good article of the week" as a title. It just seems a little long, and doesn't sound right. Maybe we could just have "Article of the week"? Archer7 - talk 19:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to "Article of the week". · Tygartl1^·talk· 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tygartl1, I can help you develop a page like En WP. (I'm a HTML/CSS/Wikicode expert.) Just tell me which sections of the En WP you want to be replicated on your test main page. - Huji ^reply 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should the main page look like the English Wikipedia main page? Why can't it be unique? Panda Bear 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Tygartl1, Hello community. In general, I like your layout of the main page. It is simple, like this Wikipedia. At the moment, we have about 4 very good articles (Yes, India is one of them). We said we would start this at about ten such articles. The problem I see is that the section headings should be pretty static. Given that we have few very good articles now, and might have more later, the title of the section should not refer to a time period. What we want to tell people there is: Look, this is a very good article, and not, For this week, this is a very good article. If there is no reference to a time period, it is also unimportant (to those who see the main page), if we change the article twice a month, or once a day. If it is possible, we might have 3-4 templates for such articles. Each time the page loads, one of those might be selected. What about a title like Very good article extract? - I think the goal to have this very good article extract on the page should be to tell the users to focus on article quality, rather than quantity. Of course, this message will not be spelled out, but rather be implicit. You too can contribute ot a very good article. --Eptalon 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon, I'm in agreement with your idea. I think, however, we should keep the title of that section simple as well! We can use "Selected article" for that. There is no need to insist on its being an extract of an article I guess, because the more... link at its end will certaily lead the visitor to the rest of it, and make him understand that wasn't the full artcile.

I think we can use a different method though. We can right (using wikicode) a complex command, which will automatically change the articles every x days, and then all we need is to save the article extracts in subpages of the main page (like Main_page/extract_1, Main_page/extract_1 etc). I can handle it if everyone is OK with the idea. - Huji ^reply 10:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I put different colors on main page, because some people may not see the color borders and may have trouble seeing light/cool colors. If everyone is alright with that. I didn't know the bottom was going to come out Las Vegas-lights-purple like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionas68224 (talk • contribs)

A suggestion: how about using a function that somehow randomly selects an article extract from the article subpages, and it chooses a different article everytime the page is refreshed or accessed again? We could also add a purge button on the page that will refresh the page and displays a new article. Some of the portals in English wiki use it, like en:Portal:Eurovision and en:Portal:Australian music. I just feel this way is better, instead of the same article displayed for a period of time. RaNdOm26 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We have Special:Random. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(Then I need to make a long answer!) First, we don't have a wikicode function that generates randome numbers, so we have no way to make it show a random page. Besides, if we could do that, the Main Page had to be rendered again every time the page was requested by a visitor, and that could be a big drawback for the database. Special:Randompage works a different way (a random number is assigned to each article on the database, and a randomization is internally performed to choose a random function), and, Special:Randompage cannot be transcluded on another page. Even if it could be, it would show a random article out of all of our articles, not out of the very good articles list.

So in brief, there is no way to show a random article/page (or they would have done that on English Wikipedia by now!) But there is a way to make the daily change of the home page article/picture, automatic.

Anyways, I'm going to give my idea a try on Main Page/Test 1. I will let you know when I'm done. - Huji ^reply 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

One thing that many people seem to like doing is welcoming users, which is great. However, many people in the past have seemed to want to welcome every single new account created, so that everyone gets the useful links etc. We've then had to let them know that welcoming every user like that is just a waste of time, because many don't edit at all.

The ones that do edit often haven't read the help information (how to write in Simple English etc), and don't know where to go to ask questions because we welcome people on the first edit. I think we should change MediaWiki:Welcomecreation to include a brief message linking to Help:Contents (and maybe a couple of others). That way, every user is told exactly where they can find help without creating hundreds of 'wasted' talk pages. Hopefully that'll lead to more new users starting to edit as well, because writing in Simple English (and making the first edit on a wiki for some) might seem a bit daunting at first. EN have done something similar at en:MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. What do you guys think? Archer7 - talk 18:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do I think it's necessary? No, probably not, considering the links to Simple talk and Help are in the "getting around" box on the side. Do I think it'll do any harm? Certainly not. I think that if you think it's worth it, we should go for it. · Tygartl1^·talk· 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If many users don't edit at all, then creating accounts might as well be a waste of time for them as well. Panda Bear 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We have 11121 registered accounts at the moment, and 6430 of them have no undeleted edits (this figure is 6302 if you want the count of users with no edits, no matter deleted or undeleted). So at least 40% of accounts are used to edit Wikipedia. I guess I'm going to support Archer7's idea here. - Huji ^reply 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have what I would call an active editing population (Accounts regularly seen in recent changes, some edits, no counting vandalism or admin related tasks) of about 30 people, I think it would be good to encourage the remaining about 6272 users to contribute as well. Would there be a way/would it make sense to delete accounts with no edit history, about 3 months after their creation? --Eptalon 11:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Only a developer can really delete accounts (I think) and they don't do it. To me, it also doesn't seem right for some reason. I'm not really sure how we can engage the no-edit users, apart from sending out a mass-email to every account with a confirmed email address if MediaWiki allowed it, but I doubt the WMF would. Maybe we can find a way to more actively engage users that are just starting out over here, rather than just posting the welcome template, like a 'mentor' system maybe. Archer7 - talk 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Eptalon, I would so no it doesn't make sense. Accounts are not created to make edits. Making edits can be done anonymously as well. Creating an account has many benefits, like having a watchlist, having a way to use costum settings (like the shell, etc) and having the ability to make a minor edit.

A user may make an account just to have access to those features, without making a single edit. There is no harm in having many accounts with no edits as well. And to finalize, similar discussions have taken place on mailing lists, resulting on no consensus in deleting (or even disabling) accounts that are left alone.

I think it is the in-flow which is small! I mean, the number of new editors should be increased. That requires some way of promoting Simple English Wikipedia. It is not an easy task to do, specially when there are people on English Wikipedia who think Simple En WP is redundant, and believe it is the En WP which should be written in simple text. That's a long story ... and you may know it better than I do. Anyways, the most feasible way to help S.E.WP is by making ourselves edit more. - Huji ^reply 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New template message

I propose the following template message:

Your recent edits to Simple talk/Archive 13

Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. We welcome you to make good-faith and constructive changes here. Although you you might not wanted to have, your newest changes to Simple talk/Archive 13 might not have met the standards for good edits. When you push "edit this page", it really works. Incase you don't know, there is always the virtual sandbox, where you can experiment with edits. You might also want to see what Wikpedia is not, and other Useful topics. Other editors may consider unconstructive edits vandalism, and if it is done multiple times, you wikk be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 04:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it is too long. - Huji ^reply 10:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how it is too long. The template messages should be nice, and all inclusive. (That means they should explain everything that can happen if one vandalises a page, and the message can't be blunt.)Blunt and short vandalism/test messages do not give a welcoming feeling, and may attract less new editors to build a reliable encyclopædia. That in turn is not good for the future of this encyclopædia, and its community features. We have to be nice, assume good faith, and not be a dick. (Not that I was accusing you of being mean, assuming bad faith, and being a dick). Also, how do you link {{PAGENAME}} and subst it to link to something (like if someone vandalised the page wiki, and one needed to post a message on the talk page)? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the message is very nice. But in my humble opinion, it is a little too inclusive. I don't think it shoudl explain everything that can happen if one vandalises a page. I think the shorter the message is, the higher is the chance for the user to understand it fully. As it gets longer, the reader starts to forget what he read in the begining.

All in all, I will try to make it shorter and posted below, just give me some time. - Huji ^reply 18:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! Here is the result of my changes (I didn't shorten it that much, but changed the tone and the content):

Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. We welcome you to make good-faith and constructive changes here, but your newest changes to $$$$$ may not meet the standards for good edits. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox to experiment with edits. Also make sure you know what wikipedia is not. Other editors may consider unconstructive edits vandalism, and if it is done multiple times, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please pay more attention when editing. Thank you.~~~~

In the above, $$$$$ should be replaced with a parameter. This way, the template can be used for vandalism happening outside Wikipedia:Simple talk as well. I still think it is a little longer than what we need. I would be grateful if someone boldly shortens is for us. - Huji ^reply 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I like that a lot. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 21:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Here you go then! - Huji ^reply 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Wiktionary Word Drive

I hope you don't mind if I talk about another project. At Simple English Wiktionary, we're trying to have 2000 pages of word definitions by Aug. 4. We have one week left. We can do it. We now have 1862 pages. Please come and help! Writing one definition is fun and only takes a few minutes. See Simple English Wiktionary Simple talk for ideas on how to write definitions. --Coppertwig 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Coppertwig. Does moving the articles marked by {{dicdef}} to Wiktionary help as well? - Huji ^reply 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Huji, it does. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 21:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We did it! Over 2000 words, and counting ... --Coppertwig 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reconsidering what is core

I think we should create a positive list of what is core:

1. Top ten cities (by area, by population, by cultural importance) of a country, province,..
2. Top ten rivers of a country
3. Political subdivisions: All the States of Mexico, all the Provinces of China (excluding Formosa/Taiwan), Iran, Korea, Russia,..
4. Culture: Articles on bands and singers are ok, provide these have a certain notability
5. Military and Historical figures, notable scientists,..

In short, i think given the project is so small, WP:CORE should be thought of: Write on anything you like, but try to focus on the more notable subjects in your field of writing first... --Eptalon 14:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should simple rephrase WP:CORE in the manner you suggest in your last sentence. I don't see a reason to use objective measures. For a country like USA, top ten cities of the country wouldn't be enough, while they are more than enough for Lichtenstein. Deciding what is notable and what is not cannot be summerized in objectie measures in general. However, rewriting the statement and assuming the readers would understand it (and should understand it) is a good idea. - Huji ^reply 10:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

I see that recently the Introduction table on the Main page has been changed a gold yellow kind of colour. It isn't real important, but may I change it to white ? LIAM ! 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

LIAM. Could you please postpone a change in color after we reach consensus about another (more major) change to the Main Page, that I will describe below shortly? - Huji ^reply 19:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Selected article on the main page

As per above discussions, I created a new main page layout that shows one of our four very good articles; the selected article is automatically changed every 7 or 8 days, so that, the number of days each article is shown on the main page is equal.

The system can be easily updated, to accept more than four articles (as soon as we have more than four very good articles). Your comments are appreciated. Please make them on Talk:Main Page/Test 1. - Huji ^reply 19:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the layout except the selected article, which should be smaller and more reader-friendly. LIAM ! 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And the colours are rather ugly... LIAM ! 04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LIAM! Thanks for your reply. In the current layout (with the selected article box on the right and the other two on the left), the size of the box cannot be smaller. If you think it is too large, I'd be grateful if you suggest a new position for the box.

Regarding the colors, well, it is a matter of taste to some extent. I'd be grateful if you suggest different colors (preferably on Talk:Main Page/Test 1) or even change Main Page/Test 1 yourself. Please use a light background for the boxes. If you like them to have a white background (as you said above) just tell me, and I will create a test page like that. - Huji ^reply 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I think the decision has to be a two step process. First, we agree on a layout, that we select form perhaps 2-3 propositions. Then we can settle on how the different boxes should be coloured. When we do this, we should change a colouring that is both pleasing to the eye, and readable for those who have trouble seeing (the color blind) --Eptalon 19:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So let's start with yourself, Eptalon. What layout do you like? - Huji ^reply 19:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the vertical layout (as done by you, Huji) is better adapted than the horizontal one (by Tygartl1). Don't pin me down on coloring, though. As I said, it needs to be high contrast. It needs to keep this legibility when it is printed, too. But I guess the printing problem can in part be solved with Stylesheets (technial detail), no? --Eptalon 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the printing part (which matters less for the "Main Page" of the wiki, rather than article pages) should be solved by changing the stylesheets. Do we have an admin who knows CSS well? - Huji ^reply 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

How do I do an image gallery here at Simple? Is it a <gallery> tag? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Read relevant help page on Meta as well. - Huji ^reply 10:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Requirements to be an admin

Konnichiwa. (That's Japanese for "Hello.") Why does a user need at least 1000 edits before requesting for adminship? Shouldn't the quality of the edits be considered? Panda Bear 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it is generally 3 months with this Wikipedia, and around 1k edits. I guess the 1k edits is to get in the habit of editing. Also consider that a user improves with editing, over time. Suppose the experiment is to pick three edits of the last 50 or 100, and judging them. So for an editor who had 950 edits to train on, this check will show very similar edits, no matter which 3 are picked. For an editor with 100-150 edits to train on, there will be more variation. Also note, that these rules are not cast in stone. If I remember correctly I was around 2500-3000 edits when I was finally made an admin. Adminship is about getting the trust of the community. It is not about a certain number of edits, or being there for a certain period of time. --Eptalon 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And of course, before you apply as an admin, read the section I started above Running out of Editors.... --Eptalon 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The 1000 article limit has another benefit too. It seems, there is a tendency in people joining Simple English Wikipedia, to apply for admin permissions sooner than what is regular in other wikis. This limitation will force people to postpone their request a little, and gives them a chance to think twice. Although it is very good to have a desire to become an admin, the desire shouldn't be the major factor influencing the decision of a user about requesting adminship. Or at least I think so. - Huji ^reply 10:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Panda Bear, look at the section above callled "Admin". j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)