Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 26

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

Critical links for religious organisations

Hello all,

On the Jehovah's Witnesses talk page, Jesse James brought up a valid point of discussion:

The Jehovah's witnesses article contains a section with links that are critical to the group; other groups (like Roman Catholicism) do not.

In my opinion, the idea of an Encyclopedia is to present the facts, or as close to the facts one can get. Regligion/Belief is something very personal. In this respect I think it is important that for the articles about religious communities, we always present both views.

Thoughts? --Eptalon (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all pages should have a neutral point of view, and this is very important on religious and political topics that could cause controversy. Do you need help to make it more NPOV? нмŵוτн τ 05:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Wantedpages not updated

Why are updates for this page disabled? It can be a bit annoying going through all the blue links to find a specific red link. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a problem for a while, it can be turned back on, but you need a developer to turn it on. Oysterguitarist 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacts with a couple of MediaWiki developers that I will happily drop a note to if you would like me to. Razor flame 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could do that it would be nice, we could also report it as a bug, but I prefer not to do that cause they have other things to do. Oysterguitarist 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so as soon as I possibly can. I can't do it until I get home from school, but I should easily be able to do so later on tonight. Cheers, Razor flame 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the case on large wikis since December 2006, It was disabled on all the smaller ones back in September 2007. The developers know that it is turned off on all wikis, bothering them about it is pretty much useless. -- Creol(talk) 13:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a partial workaround, quoting Creol from the last time this question was asked:

Partial workaround: Using the last backup (12/18), I created a list of the most linked to articles (at that time) that currently do not exist. It is not updated daily (took much of the day to do it..) but is several months more up-to-date than what we currently have. The list is Here.-- Creol(talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Bärl iner 13:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that page has been updated to the most current backup (2/14) so now we are dealing with only 2 weeks old data. Currently most of the most wanted pages are results of the influx of city pages from various countries and all the asteroid articles. -- Creol(talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another translation request

"The language is designed to shape the thought processes of its users." Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are we talking about? Oysterguitarist 04:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The language is used to make whoever uses it think differently"? --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26,000th article

Wikipedia has hit 26,000 articles. Does anyone know which is the 26,000th article? Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it changed due to articles being deleted, Stanley, Iowa is the 26,000th, according to Wikipedia:Announcements.-- Lights talk 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New templates

Earlier this week, since the talk about this topic was stunted, I decided to add 2 new templates to this site for use in the following pages:

and any others that you can think of. I would like to ask every user on here if they could start using them please, or if not, at least talk about it here. Thanks, Razor flame 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What templates?--Bärl iner 21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{support}} and {{oppose}}. Oysterguitarist 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest protecting them, if they're going to be used. Resizing the images may not only need recaching the image, but also recaching all pages that use the image, which can be an unneeded load on the servers, as the usage of the template increases. - Huji ^reply 13:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not clarifying which templates I added. I think that both of them would be very helpful to use because they give a nice graphical response instead of that plain black text :) Razor flame 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected both, edit=autoconfirmed move=sysop. Oysterguitarist 23:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

After what they wrote about us, isn't it time for us to write about them? The Guardian is really a shame! - Huji ^reply 13:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article a little bigger. (From Hatrmless to Mostly harmless, to quote the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy. --Eptalon (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest

"The Grauniad is a newspaper. It used to be called the Manchester Guardian. They moved to London, because Manchester was very hard to spell. The Guardian is still best known for making typos"

To paraphrase the last line of the article, "What you don't know about the Guardian won't hurt you"--Bärl iner 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (don't forget the {{stub}})[reply]

I took care of that redlink on the book. :) Durova (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, the article wasn't that critical. Although they did point out the inability of Simple to explain overtly complex abstract ideas (which I'll have to agree with, ever try attempting to simplify articles like Will to Power?), it isn't like they called us "Wikipedia for Idiots".--TBC 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing JS's

I have been having problems with my JS scripts on here. I would like to ask if anyone else on here are missing these as well? Thanks, Razor flame 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mine aren't working either. Oysterguitarist 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me they are working. Which JSes in specific are not working for you? Can you use Firefox, and see if an error message (error, not warning) is added to Tools > Error console? That will be helping a lot in figuring where the problem is. - Huji ^reply 08:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you technologically dependant wikipedians. I use the good ol' fashioned eyes and a mouse to help my wikipedia. :) --Gwib^-(talk)- 13:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got some errors and I know what the problem was, but hotcat isn't working for me. Oysterguitarist 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Huji: The ones that aren't working in specific for me are: Hotcat.js and whackamole vandal by Pilotguy. Razor flame 17:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The upgrade to MW 1.13alpha changed a few things about how cats are shown on the page, this is affecting JS and CSS dealing with them. I transferred the most current version of Commons HotCat over which should be a working version for the new MW, but it does work for me.. Whackamole is likely affected in the same update. -- Creol(talk) 20:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on fixing whackamole or suggestions for other options (besides doing it manually, which kinda stinks after having the tools)? · Ty grrr... 17:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining complex words

When the use of complex diction is neccessary (as anything else would sound lacking or awkward), should we explain the word through parenthesis, commas, or neither? Or should that not be standardized? For example, the word "botanist" in the George Washington Carver article.--TBC 03:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most often it seems to be done through commas. --Cethegus (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could also see if the word has a Simple English Wiktionary article, and then link the word to that :) Razor flame 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

I'm not against having colorful or creative signatures, but a lot of these new signatures are too distracting and take too much space in the editing page. Especially anything that is over one line long. Anyone with similar sentiments? --TBC 04:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One line? Do you mean HTML or visual? Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One line in Wiki markup, I mean.--TBC 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree some are too long but, it's not that big of a problem. Oysterguitarist 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat.js

What does HotCat.js do and how do you use it? SwirlBoy39 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HotCat.js is a Javascript script that enables users to make changes to existing categories on an article page, or to add a new category to the page without having to go through the editing window :) Razor flame 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! How do you get it to work? Its been purged in my monobook. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get it to work! Is the script broken? I have used it before, but can't use it now! Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All js's on this site are currently not working (save for popups). The reason for this is still unknown. Apparently, Creol brought over the most recent working version of HotCat.js, so this js should be working. If it isn't, feel free to let Creol know. Razor flame 16:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are working now. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage/Talk

I think there should be a page like there is on the English Wikipedia about talk pages (found here since there is a userpage page already on here and on the English Wikipedia. The only thing missing is wp:tp on here. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do have one on talk pages [1], though it's incomplete and there's no shortcut for it.--TBC 23:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, it is not officially accepted as a guideline or policy, although it is not too far from that point. - Huji ^reply 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I wish to use AWB but can't find any registration page. Can I register here? Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't register here. You will have to register for it on the main English Wikipedia's page. Razor flame 20:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. AWB access is confirmed on-wiki. -- Creol(talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community Barnstar

The final point I would like to bring up is the fact that I am giving everyone in this community this barnstar:

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For being such a tight-knit community, and for persevering as a community from all onslaughts, whether it be vandalism or banned users from the English Wikipedia. I hereby award all active editors in this community the following barnstar! Razor flame 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think this should take place in AN, if at all. Sorry for sounding a little harsh, but one of the key concepts that makes Wikipedia capable of using its resources correctly, is to use everthing (from human resource to page space) in the most correct way. - Huji ^reply 19:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above barnstar and my reply to it are moved from WP:AN. - Huji ^reply 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Bureaucrat/Checkusers?

Hello all,

I just wanted to let you know that Creol has been nominated for Bureaucrat; Vector and Tygrrr have been nominated for CheckUser. If you are interested in voting or voicing your opiniion, please do that here. --Eptalon (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tygrrr has declined my nomination for checkuser. Razor flame 20:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Wiki Browser

If we want to use AWB on here do we still sign up on Regular En? If we sign up there do we say for Simple and do we need 500 edits in Simple or Regular to get AWB on here? SwirlBoy39 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apply for AWB at ENWP, then let us know --Bärl iner 13:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I need 500 main space edits here or at ENWP? SwirlBoy39 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

500 edits here (I guess). --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to register for AWB over on en:WP and my request was declined because they don't accept registrations for other wikis. Dunno why they wouldn't let me use it when I have over 8k mainspace edits here... Razor flame 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weord. Maybe we could check with them? I dunno. SwirlBoy39 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject

I have made a new wikiproject for Computer Science because the most important articles on computer science are not very good. --BowToChris (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that the Simple community has enough users for wikiprojects yet...--TBC 07:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject to advertise proposed projects, TBC

BowToChris, don't forget to list your project and link on Wikipedia:WikiProject--Bärl iner 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing help to Changing help

I notice in the right corner of the edit summary it says "editing help" instead of "changing help". I am concerned because there has been a consistancy, "New changes", "Change page", "Changing (article name here)". It would be shameful to have this little bump. --Amy (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Oysterguitarist 03:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oysterguitarist. --Amy (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New gedgets

I created a few new gadgets. You can start using any of them, by going to my changess and choosing Gadgets tab and marking the ones you want to use. Feel free to ask for more! - Huji ^reply 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gadget that creates a tab that shows the difference of the current version with the last version is not working. The URL is invalid as there is an extra "/w". Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creol fixed this while I was away. You may need to purge your browser's cache to make it use the fixed version. - Huji ^reply 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

It seems a little tedious and a waste of space to upload the same image on the Simple English Wikipedia if it is already on the English Wikipedia. Is there a way I can display images from the English Wikipedia in a Simple English Wikipedia artical without re-uploading? James Kanjo (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upload it to the commons w:commons and then post it here. it shows up on any wiki, actually, if you upload it to the commons. --Amy (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not allow fair use images, but ENWP does, so often it is not a waste of space. If the image on ENWP is GNU/GFDL licensed then the original uploader should have thought about putting it onto commons instead of ENWP so everyone can share it. --Bärl iner 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming Users

Some users say we should not welcome users until they have edited. However, I disagree. I think users who are new and haven't edited yet should be welcomed with {{welcome}} because it shows them what is going on, how to edit etc. I do not think they should be welcomed with {{welcomeq}} if they haven't edited yet. What do you think? Otherwise, lets create a message specifically for non editing new users so they understand everything. I've seen new users who haven't edited and I think some are throw aways and some are users who didn't read the welcome/don't know what to do yet. After all, everyones a newbie sometime! Did you know how to do everything at first? SwirlBoy39 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above post. We need to show people how to edit. -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else have an opinion? SwirlBoy 39 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. All users need to be welcomed as they may not know how to get started, and there could be the possibility of losing valuable contributors. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could add a welcome template to MediaWiki:Welcomecreation and not waste a ton of pages. Oysterguitarist 02:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't we say {{welcome}} for those who haven't edited and {{welcomeq}} for those who have? SwirlBoy 39 02:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a notice on MediaWiki:Welcomecreation about how to edit, and a link to the sandbox to make test edits, etc. would do, and if they edit, then a welcome template can be posted on their talkpage. I made a proposed version of MediaWiki:Welcomecreation here, if you think it should be improved at all, feel free to change it.-- Lights talk 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Lights. SwirlBoy 39 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that look weird to have 2 welcome messages on a talk page though one before an edit and one after? SwirlBoy 39 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Welcomecreation is what appears the first time a user logs in after they create their account. The version I'm proposing is telling users how to edit, with a link to the sandbox if they want to test their editing skills, how to get help, and a link to a list of the rules. The welcome templates have more stuff, like thanking users for their changes, telling them to be bold, to sign their posts etc.. The welcome templates would be more useful for users who have edited and MediaWiki:Welcomecreation would be for new users who havn't edited to see when they first log in to their new account.-- Lights talk 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with both Oyster and Lights on this. We should not welcome every user that comes on here, because whether you like it or not, the majority of the accounts created on this Wikipedia are in fact just created and then forgotten about. Very few of the accounts that are created are actually used. I would have to say that we should stick to only welcoming users that actually make active contributions to this Wikipedia, however, I am not against Oyster's suggestion of adding a welcome message to the creation page. Razor flame 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]