Jump to content

Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 87

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple Sister projects?

While looking around, I performed this search and got a sidebar: Sister projects search results, including SimpleWb and SimpleWq, which are now closed... Should these still be showing up? -Avicennasis @ 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything has been deleted from the projects; they're still available for viewing, for whatever reason. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SimpleWB is locked but en:b: is importing their content. WQ is supposed to be gone. —I-20the highway 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flood

I'd like the flood flag (I'm stub-sorting) —I-20the highway 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Let one of us know when you're finished, and thanks for your work. @Lauryn (parlez) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any stub types to sort into. Yank it. —I-20the highway 03:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Sonia. EhJJTALK 03:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps in policy

I have just created WP:No legal threats, but it needs a lot of work before it becomes policy (although it de facto is). I note that when starting a project-namespace page, the editnotice contains a redlink to Wikipedia:Project namespace in it, which is probably something else that needs prompt fixing. Are there any other important policies that we are missing? sonia♫♪ 12:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides User:Sonia/IIAR and my planned revisions to WP:SIG right? (The latter is still in development.) Are you going to incorporate IIAR into IAR or create a separate page?  (change conflict)   (change conflict)  :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? No, IIAR is just an essay, and a poorly written one might I add. Signatures, same thing- nowhere near policy status. There is quite a big difference between policy, guideline and essay. sonia♫♪ 12:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a list of Wikipedia policies here and there are less of them than here. (Perhaps less policy means better wiki, and less bureaucracy.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, is NLT a policy, guideline, or essay? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 12:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a policy, but not in its current condition. (TeleCom, if you want to work on simplifying a guideline, I've started WP:Disruptive changing- help appreciated.) sonia♫♪ 12:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just soft-redirect it to the English Wikipedia, or base whatever new pages on those. Our core policies should be no different. It's not something that needs much discussion; as long as it gives the same message, we don't need too much discussion about it. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget people that we have a policy that when a policy doesn't exist here we use the one from English Wikipedia. I can't for the life of me think of the link to it at the moment. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is in Wikipedia:Rules, where it says Most of the time, if a rule has not been made here, or if a something that happens is not covered by the rules that are here, we will look at the rules on the main English Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. We should also use common sense. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok cool. Thought we had a seperate page for it. That works. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is. It's just that some of the enwiki pages are pretty hard to understand and not succinct enough for our purposes. Also, linking to "according to policy WP:OUTING" and having a redlink show up pretty much strips it of authority. I understand that we don't need most of the guidelines, but I do feel that we should have local versions of at least the most important policies. sonia♫♪ 05:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the way you do avoid the red links is as follows...WP:OUTING. But yeah all in all we should have our own. I was just pointing out there are no actual gaps. -DJSasso (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Gadget-vandalwarner.js

Is it built-in? I added the scripts, and don't see any vandal warning tool.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you refresh your cache (en:Wikipedia:Bypass_your_cache) or restart your browser? EhJJTALK 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I still can't find the tool. All I see is "Page size".  Hazard-SJ Talk 03:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see it.  Hazard-SJ Talk 00:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which skin and web browser are you using? EhJJTALK 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mozilla Firefox.  Hazard-SJ Talk 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image size revisited

Back in May, there was a discussion about the default image size. The end result was that 220px was being implemented in all the wikis. Our default size is still 180. Any idea if and when our default size will be changed?--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will happen as they roll it out across wikis. That sometimes takes awhile. If you need a size sooner then that just manually set it to 220px. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also change your default thumbnail size in Special:Preferences. Of course, if someone has already manually set a fixed size to the image, it will display only in that size. For that reason I spent a lot of time trying to convince people NOT to set [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|180px]], since that is the default and not placing a size allows logged in users to set their own size. Unfortunately, my efforts have been in vain. EhJJTALK 09:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello. There is a picture on the English Wikipedia that I would use in an article. I can't find it here, though. Is there any way to get it?  Hazard-SJ Talk 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the picture is on Commons, you can't use it. We don't host images on SEWP. Yottie =talk= 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find it there either.  Hazard-SJ Talk 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which image on which article? Chances are it can be uploaded to Commons. -Atmoz (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply Bird.jpg to Simply Bird.  Hazard-SJ Talk 19:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en:Simply Bird contains en:File:Simply Bird.jpg, which is Non-free media. When you click on an image, and dont see to the right of file name, the image is not hosted on commons, and we can't use it.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References Tag???

I'm knew to the Simple English Wikipedia and am wondering... is there is a reference template like on the English Wikipedia? Someone should make one if theres not. Battleaxe9872 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{reflist}} :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photo?

I'm trying to upload a cover of a copyrighted photo of a cover. However, you can't upload it to the commons because it is copyrighted, and you can't upload it to this wiki because it isn't alowed. Is there any way to get around this? Battleaxe9872 Talk 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't allow copyrighted photos on this wiki, which is why we only use photos from commons. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Hello. I have tried to copy and paste userboxes from the main English wikipedia with no success. Is there (and if so, how) any way of inserting userboxes onto your userpage? --Sterwick (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP:Userboxes here. You can also make your own too. wiooiw (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. I have created my own userbox on my userpage --Sterwick (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-scroll

Hello, I have a question.
Question: How do you get a preview box to be scrolled? (What is the formatting?)  Hazard-SJ Talk 18:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be using a preview box unless its necessary. We generally don't do things like scroll boxes in articles. Except sometimes for references, even then they shouldn't be used because they don't display well on all browsers. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not for an article.  Hazard-SJ Talk 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi, I am a new user. Did you have template about translation? Nataly8 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what it is you seek, but are you looking for something like {{enwp based}}? It looks like this:
This page or parts of it were created based, in whole or in part, on this page of the English Wikipedia. The complete history of the page can be found there.
If this is what you are looking for, there is no need to use a template, you can just write a short note on the article talk page. EhJJTALK 13:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion

Lately, I was creating a lot of redirects for Template:Adminshirt, until Djsasso told me the redirects could be QD'ed as unlikely typos on his talkpage. I'd like to bring it to ST to see consensus on the matter. I created a list of redirects here, though the list may get longer as I try to think of the ones for the user warning templates mentioned above. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to be discuss everything. The community is not a tool for you to misuse to overrule admins. The admins were made admins by the community. If an admin has told you that he thinks a page you have created is deletable under QD rules, you may wish to listen. fr33kman 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Fr33kman, but as we have no REFDESK, HELPDESK, nor Village pump in sight, I feel that this is the only way to discuss anything. If you would like, we could create a separate page for this discussion. Anyway, you were talking about "a page" under QD, but we're talking about a whole list of redirects. Each redirect is a separate case, and I want to deal with them here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have been deleted. We are not enwiki and we don't have to have every template they have. fr33kman 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That's why we have cratshirt and they don't. What about the ones for the user warnings, as seen here? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have all the ones we really need, and all that we have can stay. fr33kman 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Which ones can stay and which ones can leave/deleted? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave them as they are. fr33kman 21:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I agree completely here. If I may, I would like to say that as far as the redirects go, they are cheap. Find a balance. Don't create many redirects just to create them, this is not required. But instead, create the ones that are useful. For example, I don't like typing {{Bureaucrat-note}} every time I need to make a process note on a crat related activity, so I created {{Bc-note}} to save myself time. Please note, however, that I did not create 30 permutations of {{Bureaucrat-note}}. If we notice template creations becoming excessive and that those permutations will be not likely to be used, we may delete them. They are not required.
  • I will assume that you mean well, and I won't discourage you from bringing your questions here. So feel free to ask your questions if you need help, we will do our best to explain. I don't think you were misusing the community as a tool to usurp administrators. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. I didn't say he couldn't do it. But that he might want to think about what he was doing, because almost all of them qualify for speedy deletion under the unlikely typo speedy criteria. While I agree redirects are cheap, creating a few hundred redirects for no good reason is a waste of resources and your time. Not to mention it makes a mess of "What links here". -DJSasso (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso and I are in agreement here. Jon@talk:~$ 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like redirects, they are a great tool to enhance navigation of the site. However a hundred redirects that just add a hyphen or use a lowercase letter instead of an uppercase aren't useful, as if you search with such a small mistake the page you are looking for will come up in the search results. I envy TeleComNasSprVen desire to help, but maybe we can find something more useful to do. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent redirects

Ok, so I was about to create a lot of redirects from this list under the supervision of administrator Jamesofur when M7 suddenly objects to their creation. He would like me to bring it over here for the community to decide whether the redirects are appropriate. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, redirecting words in one language to words in another language is not appropriate in the least, and I see a number of those in that list. I would also mention that things like capitalization differences need not be created for example king automatically redirects to King even without a redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I originally thought that en:WP:EN would allow redirects from other languages to be created, but if it doesn't apply, then I guess you could delete them. Oh, and I put each of the targets of the redirects below each of the redirects themselves as a matter of organization; I know capitalization differences don't matter. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References/Disambiguation

Is the word "reference" too complex to be used in articles? Or is the word "source" simpler? Plus we still haven't agreed on whether "Disambiguation" should be changed to "other meanings" because they "don't mean the same thing" supposedly. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop trying to change everything and start working on articles. Reference is simple enough. Source has many meanings. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Djsasso, the refs are central to article writing. Without it, all our articles would be left unverifiable, and we wouldn't have an encyclopedia. That's why I asked for a project-wide reevaluation of the simplicity of the word "reference". Many, many articles right now have conflicts between the word "reference" and "source", and I'm looking for a consistent encyclopedia. I'm not trying to "change everything", just the stuff needed for articles. If you have something to contribute more substantially than an ad hominem attack, "You need to stop trying to change everything and start working on articles", please do so; but otherwise just stay away from the discussion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes references are central to article writing. The word reference is used in pretty much every article, if you see source somewhere change it. You are continually trying to make changes for the sake of making changes and you are constantly attacking editors who don't agree with you. My comment wasn't an attack but more of a strong suggestion that you might want to start actually working on articles which is our #1 priority since you have already been blocked once and continued incivility will cause it to happen again. I would also note when you say you are only changing things needed for articles, I would point out changing the word references or source, does not do that. Neither does trying to change every mediawiki message, or mass creating redirects which have a very low likelihood of being used. -DJSasso (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is rather irrelevant to the discussion. But your points are noted. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source does sound simpler than reference, and would probably be better and easier to understand. Battleaxe9872 Talk 15:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Why we use this page? Nataly8 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To talk about how a user behaves, what a user has accomplished so far on a wiki, how the user has interacted with other people, what the user's goals and intentions are on this encyclopedia, etc. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Telecom's quite right, but the expression of "Talking about" needs some small bit of clarifying as it would be easy to get confused about it. Editor reviews are for letting the editor know what to improve about, their good parts and bad parts in editing, and how to improve or get better in their editing. If you would like to know more or are curious for more, please see this page as it has all the guidelines. Thank you, Belle tête-à-tête 10:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page?

I created Time Flies... 1994-2009. I want to move it to match the one in the Template:Oasis. How would I move it to match that title? Battleaxe9872 Talk 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're in beta mode? You see on top on the page, there's a little star, and if you click it, you add the page to your watchlist. NEXT to the star, is a "down arrow". Hover over it, and a list should slide down. Click, "move". Make sure you're on the page that you're moving. SimonKSK 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am in beta mode. Does it show up in non-beta mode? Battleaxe9872 Talk 17:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. :) On Monobook, at the top of the page, there's a small box next to "change this page" and "history" that says "move". When you click it, a new page will appear. Fill in the boxes inside it, and click the "move page" button—and the page will be moved. :) If there's already a page with that name, so that it cannot be moved, you can ask me or any other administrator to delete the page when appropriate to help make way for a move. Cordially, —Clementina talk 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds kinda stupid now, but I couldn't see the move page button. I guess I had to be 4 days old to see it. Battleaxe9872 Talk 19:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple"

I'm not trying to change a lot, but can we consider the following:

  • "Create"→"Make"
  • "View history"→"See history"

Thank you.  Hazard-SJ Talk 08:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^I agree, I've been thinking of the same idea for some time, and this proposal sounds good. :) Cordially, —Clementina talk 09:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not. I'm trying to find the Mediawiki pages now. sonia♫ 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should create not become "start" as opposed to "make"? sonia♫ 09:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. More people should know what "start" means.  Hazard-SJ Talk 09:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) I'm not totally sure about this. IMO, create is already simple; it's among the thousand most common words in English. The word view is in fact in the BE850 list. I don't see a point in changing the MW pages. Also, in my opinion, such proposals should be considered by the community for some time before the changes being made so that everyone gets a chance to comment. Cheers, Pmlineditor ∞ 09:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Er... I see there is some contention, so without a general agreement, I won't make the interface change. I'm sorry. Jon@talk:~$ 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Pmlineditor. Create actually is a simple word. The same goes for view. View is also among the 1000 most spoken words. No need for a change, imo. -Barras (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the MW interface was chosen from the BE850 (or similar list) when the project was created several years ago. Only in rare cases will it need to be changed. I'd like to see a consensus about changes to the core interface before they are implemented. EhJJTALK 09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, lets focus on article work. Most of the media wiki interface was taken as EhJJ mentions from the BE word lists a long time ago, there is a reason they haven't changed in a long time. -DJSasso (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the week

Can anybody explain what is this? Nataly8 (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you don't understand on that page? Each week articles are choosen to translate to each language wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a funny activity. Each week one or two articles are picked, and the idea is to have them in as many languages as possible, by the end of the week. There?s a bot updating the entries. The current entries are shown in the new changes tab. --Eptalon (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why it doesn't work? I try to do something, but it doesn't work. Anyone know how to do it? Nataly8 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't have an answer. The code is listed for it at MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and as far as I can see it looks ok. Of course, I have to be missing something, as it doesn't show anything for {{Link GA}} for me either. Hmm. Ideas, anyone? -Avicennasis @ 08:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is weird. I just put the code in monobook.css and vector.css. I basically went through and did everything from here, and it seems to work for me (on Monobook; Vector still doesn't :P). Does it work for anyone else? sonia♫ 08:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see it. It doesn't work (for me). Any ideas? How the Link FA works? Why it (Link GA) doesn't work like it (Link FA)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataly8 (talk • contribs)
Hmm...for what it's worth, I've never been able to see it either. —Clementina talk 08:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. MediaWiki:Common.js and the css page Avicennasis linked above are what make it work; previously, neither allowed for GA icons. I've just updated both of them, so you should be able to see them now. No doubt I've made a mistake somewhere. Perhaps some of the other users will know what is broken? sonia♫ 08:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to look at this now, but I suspect the code may be in Mediawiki:Common.css. The real expert in this field is User:Chenzw. Anybody tried contacting him (perhaps on his talk page?) EhJJTALK 09:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any relevent code in Common.css, but there does appear to be some in Mediawiki:Vector.css. User:The Obento Musubi is also somewhat of an expert. EhJJTALK 15:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno who changed what, but it's working for me now. Monobook skin only, FYI - the coding for these is not Vector-friendly. :) -Avicennasis @ 10:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Nothing's changed since I last changed it, so maybe it was caching? sonia♫ 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you create a bot?

How do you create a bot? Flags (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a read at en:Wikipedia:Creating a bot but generally if you have to ask that question, you probably shouldn't be operating one. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

How do I get an edit notice on the edit page of my userpage? Hazard-SJ Talk 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you can have an edit notice in your userspace here, and the notice for user talk pages is hard-coded for every user and thus uncustomizable. -Avicennasis @ 07:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was a "WASTE OF TIME", but it was good for my experience! I'll have to get it deleted, though, as it has no use; just taking up my user space. Hazard-SJ Talk 07:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try editing your user page. EhJJTALK 09:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hazard-SJ Talk
Can I edit it the same way I made it? It is a bit Hazardous (the formatting and text (I have a message box formatting on my talk page I can use) and I'd like to make it a bit different, since I see It on all of my user space (excluding user talk space). I'd also like to make one for my user talk space. Hazard-SJ Talk 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New welcome templates

I've just moved a couple of my personal welcome templates out as Template:Welcome-en and Template:Welcome-iw, for use welcoming experienced contributors from other projects. I feel that some parts of the standard welcome are redundant for such users, and may even feel condescending. If anyone objects to their content or existence, feel free to comment. sonia♫ 09:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look really good.. Definitely very useful. Great job! PrincessofLlyr talk 13:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments by year

I'm cross-posting this so it doesn't go unnoticed by those interested. In short, lots of sub-categories of this exist, but few articles in each category. I'd like to group articles together by merging some of the sub-categories. Please read and post comments at Category talk:Establishments by year. Thanks! EhJJTALK 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country

Why does Template:user uk come up in Ukrainian?!? And then how do I indicate in this wiki that I'm British? Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, UK refers to ukrain. Try using Template:User en. ({{User en}}) Hazard-SJ Talk 06:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No that's a native speaker! Macdonald-ross (talk)
I can't seem to find a template for that. You'll have to create Template:User en-gb-n or Template:User en-uk-n. You could user Template:User en-ca-n as a base for those. -Avicennasis @ 07:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Or make {{User UK}} with the caps... Hazard-SJ Talk 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a simple box with a flag. Thanks for the comments. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You're welcome! Hazard-SJ Talk 09:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just added "I'm British" to your userpage blurb... ;-) –Juliancolton | Talk 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger page?

Do we have a proposed merger page, or should I just list my proposed merger here? Battleaxe9872 ツ 23:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a merger or move page. We should get a merger/move page, something like WP:Mergers and moves. Too much stuff of too broad a scope is done here Purplebackpack89 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have been clearer. For templates, not articles. Battleaxe9872 ツ 23:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not for both of them? Purplebackpack89 03:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Can someone please explain this: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25s It leads to the main page. Hazard-SJ Talk 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC) It says "(This redirect is needed for Mozilla based browser searches.)" Hazard-SJ Talk 03:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

en:WP:Cross-namespace redirects and en:WP:NOTBROKEN

Do these essays apply here on simpleWiki? There are a couple of weird redirects floating around, and I've seen a few users correcting links to redirects even when doing so is unnecessary. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but keep in mind that the first is an essay, and the second is a guideline. They are not strict rules that need to be followed 100% of the time. (Even policies do not need to be always followed). EhJJTALK 09:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia, if we don't have a written down different version than en's we use en's until we have consensus to use something else. And while correcting links is not necessary, its also not prohibited. In most cases I find correcting redirects a good idea, except in situations where there are two completely different names and its likely that that redirect will at some point be split off to its own article. But meerly typo redirects and alternative name redirect, meh if I am doing other edits on the page I will fix them, I won't just edit a page to fix a redirect though, unless it really is broken. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCPF

Hello! I am just letting you know that the New Changes Police Force now exists. Hazard-SJ Talk 14:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly recommend changing the name of that. It is extremely WP:BITEy. -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it, but I have to snatch up a new name. Hazard-SJ Talk 15:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions? Hazard-SJ Talk 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is WikiProject Vandal Patrol WP:BITEy too? Hazard-SJ Talk 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No because they don't call themselves Police, but there already is a vandalism wikiproject. Not much need to start another to be honest. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Could I keep some of my things, though? I'd have to modify them, a bit, though. BTW, WP A-V isn't updated regularly.

I don't see the need for wikiprojects at all, actually, especially of the cleanup kind- anti-vandalism, typos, etc. We work in our area of interest, other users who have the same interests (or are bored and watching RC) pitch in. Cleanup happens as we go. *shrugs* Wikiprojects are useful to create a tasklist of what articles need improving and why, but for something like RC? sonia♫ 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to merge a bit of things, as well as change and request QD on a few things. I'll keep some. Hazard-SJ Talk 15:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "contest" of the other kind...

Hello all,

this year Ramadan starts on August 11. During Ramadan, (healthy, non-pregnant) adult Muslims are supposed not to eat or drink between sunrise, and sunset. Therefore, a propoisition would be to have one article with an Islam-related topic, at either GA or VGA status, at the end of Ramadan. What do you think? --Eptalon (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closest Islam related articles that I could find were Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Islam. They would probably be the easiest articles to get to good article status. The rest of the articles about Muslims or the Islam religion were too short to be good articles. Battleaxe9872 Talk 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Islam is a stand-out candidate. Already simply written, it perhaps lacks a recognition of the points of conflict with the culture of the western world. In particular, it should have a section on the religion as interpreted in Saudi Arabia, which is especially oppressive to other religions and cultures, and has political consequences. Material is available on enWP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mosque has been nominated for GA or VGA once; given its size, it's probably more of a VGA-candidate. As to Islam, there are other countries where personal success at work may be linked to belonging to a certain faith. (Iran comes to mind...) --Eptalon (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mosque looks excellent. I'll take a look at adding some material to Islam, but anything I write on the topic will probably need to be POV-checked. sonia♫ 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mosque has never been a GA candidate, but twice DYK. It looks, at first glance, in good shape. Since 'Pilgrim' is on the road I won't supervise Mosque, but if either of you puts it up, I'll write comments and suggestions. Go for it! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Started an userspace page for coordination--Eptalon (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal Wikipedia standard here on simple to change all "External links" headers to "Other websites"? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. πr2 (talk • changes) 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive I saw where it said so, but I don't remember where. Hazard-SJ Talk 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/PiRSquared17Bot2 πr2 (talk • changes) 20:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in our Manual of Style: Wikipedia:MOS#Linking_to_other_websites. Either way (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarawih

I don't know much about the subject, is there anyone that can help with this? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made a start --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else getting this message?

The page at http://simple.wikipedia.org says:

Gateway Time-out: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=watchlist&wllimit=1&wldir=older&format=xml&wlprop=comment%7Cids%7Ctitle

Or something like it? I'm in Beat Beta mode, if it makes any difference, and I have the watchlist notifier on. Battleaxe9872 ツ 17:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you clicking on when you get it? -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't click on anything: it pops up when I click on any page on this Wiki. Battleaxe9872 ツ 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, I would say one of the scripts or plugins you are using doesn't work. That URL is not correct. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been getting similar messages (in alert boxes). πr2 (talk • changes) 17:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site is valid and probably being used by a script. Here is what I get by looking at my broswer's page source:

<api><query><watchlist><item pageid="125989" revid="2370989" ns="4" title="Wikipedia:Simple talk" comment="/* Is anyone else getting this message? */" /></watchlist></query><query-continue><watchlist wlstart="2010-08-16T19:22:57Z" /></query-continue></api>

Sounds like it's a hardware problem on Wikipedia's end. If it's annoying you, the only way I can think of stopping it is to remove the script. EhJJTALK 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Recentchanges-url

Should this be "Special:NewChanges?" πr2 (talk • changes) 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's deprecated, and doesn't do anything anymore, and doesn't actually exist anymore persay...if you notice. Do you seriously look through old meta wiki pages for things to do? -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a MediaWiki page that controls that... πr2 (talk • changes) 01:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not that one. MediaWiki forwarding doesn't work like that anymore. -DJSasso (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a need for it though? --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 01:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is nothing to be done here. -DJSasso (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My rights status and availability

Howdy Simple!

I have been hired as staff with the Wikimedia Foundation currently working full time remotely in Boston through January 31st 2011 but with a goal to transition that into a full time position in San Francisco as the appointment comes to a close. While I will be cutting down on my IRC channels I will remain in at least simple-admins and will in many ways be "available" for help even more then usual since I'll be on while working. I may at times be slow to respond because of work responsibilities (I will be focusing on the fundraiser for now).

I just resigned my Checkusership on Meta for at least the next 6 months. I have also been asked to relinquish my crat rights for now (my boss Philippe would prefer staff not have the local ability to create sysops), I was allowed to keep it if I thought Simple needed it but to be honest I think we have enough that I wasn't too worried about the project would be in trouble if I gave it up. I did want to keep it though :(. My local statuses will have to be revisited if I transition to permanent staff but for now it is temporary.

I am confident that this won't disrupt the project too much and do not anticipate ignoring Simple. In fact I anticipate forcing you all to comment and take part in the fundraiser if possible :P. James (T C) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and best wishes for the new job! sonia♫ 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, congratulations! :) I'm sure you'll do a great job and be a benefit to the WMF and its volunteers—just don't forget Simple! ;) Warmly, —Clementina talk 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six months and he won't even remember our names! [sniff, x2] fr33kman 03:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Félicitations!! I'm not surprised, though, due to your talent and skill and sensibility :). And fr33kman: I'm sure he will, he's great at remembering things... Belle tête-à-tête 03:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratz!!! - (>ಠ_ಠ)>The King<(^.^<) (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, James! --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! -Barras (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:) wiooiw (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! SimonKSK 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A finer selection could not have been made!--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qui

Hello, wikipedians. I have Installed Qui based on TheDJ's version on the English WIKIPEDIA, as for some reason, I cant get the version by TeleComNasSprVen to work (if it still exists). If you use it or want to use it, it's the same procedure, just that you import my script: User:Hazard-SJ/qui.js, so you would add the following to your monobook, vector and skin pages (if all that is needed) as I have done: 

importScript('User:Hazard-SJ/qui.js');

You should see the following in your javascripts when saved: 


importScript('User:Hazard-SJ/qui.js');


Thank you. Hazard-SJ Talk 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeleCom's version has been deleted, methinks. sonia♫ 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, as I can't find anything on the pages. Hazard-SJ Talk 23:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested? Hazard-SJ Talk 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think it's that useful here. This is a small community, so we usually know most of the time who's online and offline, and who's our friends. SimonKSK 16:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Actually, it is this. Hazard-SJ Talk 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to actually make it work. Do you need some kind of code or template on your user page or talk page? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Statustop? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added your script to my vector and monobook. About a minute later, after I read this, I removed it. The status changer still shows up. I've purged the cache multiple times for about 10 minutes, and it still shows up. How can I remove it? Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 16:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That message is found on all scripts as a warning. It has nothing to do with the content. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know: I still want it removed. Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit the page that has the status indicator on it. Look for {{statustop}}. Remove it. That should fix it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also vs Other pages

Which one should be used here? πr2 (talk • changes) 16:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For background, PirSquared17 told Chemicalinterest that we only use "Other pages" on Wikipedia. I questioned this asking for a source. Our Manual of Style (WP:MOS) says nothing about it and uses "See also." PirSquared17 used his bot to change "See also" to "Other pages" on dozens of pages. See User_talk:Chemicalinterest#Please_use_.22Other_pages.22 for the discussion. Either way (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fr33kman approved it. πr2 (talk • changes) 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He approved your bot to make changes. That in no way, shape, or form sets the manual of style guideline for the entire Wikipedia. Either way (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way that both can be used? They both make sense. I can't say one's better than the other. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
diff πr2 (talk • changes) 17:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does that prove? That one person once changed "See also" to "Other pages"? I can point you to the MOS where it's been set as "See also" for years and has not been changed. Face it, there is no where set in stone that says we need to use one or the other. So, if we want to establish a standard, let us talk about that. Otherwise, let's not force people into a standard that does not exist. Either way (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation should continue at the talk page of WP:MOS. Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima?

Is there an article on this? and who makes it i forget? --Kawtongue (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Ultima? the Final Fantasy boss or the town in Australia? SimonKSK 17:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of car. --Kawtongue (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The car manufacturer? If so, you can be bold, and make the article yourself here. :) SimonKSK 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ultima Sports? I mean who makes the model? --Kawtongue (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can show me a link of what you are talking about? Like a google link, or something? Again, there doesn't seem to be an article for it, so if you want, you can make it yourself. SimonKSK 17:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big oops look here what i ment sorry but thanks. --Kawtongue (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. SimonKSK 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good lists

I just think that if I make list like that in simple-wiki, fill it very good lists -criterions?-Henswick (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you make the intro simply. The criteria is a little different here though since you have to make it easy to read and having a lot of information. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are the red links problem there?-Henswick (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the porblem is a fundamentally different one: If you have two "lists", can you say that one of them is "good", or "very good", and if so based on what criteria? - The criteria we have are for articles, they do not apply to lists. And before that question even: Can we come up with a concept of "good" or "very good" list? --Eptalon (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formeradmin

Before it runns out of mind, I'd like to inform you that I have made the template "Formeradmin". It has a redirect: Former admin. This means you can get it by doing the following:

Hazard-SJ Talk 20:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly useful. Most, if not all our admins who leave and are now former admins retire and don't change thison their pages... And we don't touch other userpages. Where is the sense of having this now? -Barras (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QD talkpage

Should talk pages be {{qd}}'d or replaced with {{talkpage}} (or something else)? πr2 (talk • changes) 01:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the kind of vandalism. I normally tend to delete talk pages. -Barras (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann

This page is a redirect to the article on 'Dragons', however, the show has no bearing to dragons in any way what-so-ever. I'd really appreciate it if someone could turn the page into an article, since the page on dragons literally doesn't educate the reader on Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann at all.

Thanks for your time and patience (I'm new to wikitalk) -- Dr.Rawr (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't exist. πr2 (talk • changes) 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single user login

Resolved. usurped -- fr33kman 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am en:User:EmilJ, and since June 2008, I am the owner of the global account of the same name (the merge was completed on ~16 June 2008 after I usurped a conflicting account on dawiki). However, SUL util shows that someone else registered User:EmilJ on this wiki on 29 January 2009. It was not an automatically created offspring of my global account, as it is unattached, and it does not accept my password. What gives? In theory, my global user name is supposed to be reserved on all Wikimedia projects. Does this mean that simple WP is somehow exempt from this rule?—147.231.88.204 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can request a rename/usurp/etc. at WP:CHU. πr2 (talk • changes) 12:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've seen this link on top of this page. But first I'd like to make sure I understand what happened, in case this apparently irregular behaviour of the system requires irregular treatment.—147.231.88.204 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people

Could all you regular editors do me a favor and never add a new page to this category? It's a category that needs to be completely diffused. We have categories for people from all fifty states, plus DC and Puerto Rico. If you're an American, you've almost certainly been born or lived in those places. Plus we have many categories dealing with ethnicity, religion and occupation of Americans. I thought I had fixed it last week, but in the last few days more have been created. Save me the trouble--use the subcategories Purplebackpack89 06:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The very problem I see here is that people like George Gershwin are first of all seen as "American", not as from NY, or even from one of its borroughs. Classifying Gershwin as a New Yorker therefore has little sense at the moment (How many more Composers do we have from NY, esp. well-known ones like Gershwin?). So a classification down to state or city level makes sense for people who come from the US, but mostly no sense for other people. This problably also applies to "religious communities" (Gershwin was Jewish, and his family immigrated from Russia). While it is used in the Us, classification into African-American, Hispanic, and "European immigrant" are only a base for racism and serve little other purpose. Yes, Barrack Obama is an African American, but then how many more do we have that are worth noting? - Does it therefore make sense to have a category for African Americans, or Hispanics? - As an example, I wouldn't even know where in the US Jimmy Carter is from...--Eptalon (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the flip side of it; Ep, is that you end up with a category with potentially thousands of articles that is impossible to use, and probably doesn't need to be used (People don't want to know about every single American who we have). Many other Wikipedias, including English, Spanish, and Italian, require diffusion of the category (I notice your home language of German is not one of those; but I'd like you to consider the navigational utility of a category with 29,000+ pages). Are there enough blacks, Hispanics, or Jews to have viable categories, even here? Most certainly; dozens of articles in each, even here. Makes perfectly good sense. If you think that category diffusion here is bad; you should see the diffusion on English-not only is American diffused, but so are African-American, Hispanic and Jewish...you get categories like "Jewish-American politicans" and "African-American baseball player". I doubt the arguement that people are seen first by their nationality; I think they're more seen first by their career (I think of Gershwin more as a composer than an American or a Jew; and yes, there are many composers in the United States from New York). And Jimmy Carter? He's from Georgia. Bottom line, Ep--undiffused category=no navigational utility. Purplebackpack89 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put it differently: A category with less than about 5 entries (including subcats) is not worth keeping, one with more than about 40-50 entries shoulld be split. To come back to Obama: Categries: US presidents, people from <wherever he is from>, African Americans, birthcats. Gershwin: American Composers, People from New York, American Jews, Birth/death?--Eptalon (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Exactly. If those articles aren't tagged that way, they will be Purplebackpack89 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium mines

This article seems unclear. Elemental calcium does NOT exist in the earth; it is way too reactive. Calcium COMPOUNDS such as calcium carbonate (the most common one) are found in the earth. Calcium carbonate is opaque; it does not have a purple shimmer. Calcium compounds are colorless. This article seems like nonsense. What does anyone else think? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that gypsum, chalk, limestone and marble are calcium compounds which can be obtained through mining. Calcium carbonate is very abundant and usually mined. So if you like rewrite and move the article to reflect that. Do you think we should delete the article and start a new one with a better name? --Eptalon (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted as hoax, recreate with a better name, if so inclined. --Eptalon (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct action, though an unusual case. We don't have much on mining. Do we have a mining category? I think not. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I don't think we do, but we can create a category, once we have 5 stubs that roughly fit it. :) --Eptalon (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Minerals would be a good one to include it in. I also rewrote the calcium article. It sounded like you were supposed to ingest elemental calcium! --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter

I think we can have the AbuseFilter extension here and rename it, say to "Change filter". Thoughts and ideas gladly accepted. (I-20 from en.wb) —I-20the highway 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this, this, and also this. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes) 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dum me for not searching the archive. —I-20the highway 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone piledriver

would it be notable enough? or should i request it to be made? --Radance (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, wrestling moves aren't notable enough for a page of it's own. SimonKSK 13:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments...

...at the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style regarding the "See also", "Other pages", and "Related pages" proposed guideline. There needs to me a more thorough consensus before either accepting or rejecting it. Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC

What is the Simple English Wikipedia equivalent of en:WP:RFC? —Waterfox (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have one: even if we did, it probably wouldn't be used too much. Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page and the Administrator's Noticeboard more or less cover everything that could come up. Being a smaller community, we don't have the need to be *quite* as formal. Kansan (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed simplification of sandbox header

I just wanted to get comm. consensus before I attempted to simplify the sandbox's header. To see my proposed version of what users see on the sandbox, you may go to User:Hazard-SJ/Proposed sandbox header. Thanks. Hazard-SJ Talk 13:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that different from the current one. If it was a massive revamp, then it might have needed consensus, but this is just a little more simple than the current sandbox template. You could have just been bold and done it yourself. SimonKSK 13:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to do in now. Hazard-SJ Talk 15:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hazard-SJ Talk 15:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between blocking and banning

What is the difference? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were you looking for Wikipedia:Blocks and bans? Hazard-SJ Talk 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*smacks head* Duh --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A block is an administrativce measure, by an admin; a ban is a "community decision" (which is usually supported by a block). --Eptalon (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a block is a technical action of blocking someone for a period of time. A ban is when the community decides to block someone indefinitely and a block is used to enforce the ban. -DJSasso (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a ban is a social construct that may include a ban on a certain area or topic, which may be enforced by blocking. A ban is not necessarily sitewide. Jon@talk:~$ 16:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple talk/tier sample

Is this {{historical}}? πr2 (talk • changes) 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but I doubt it will be any use in historical references, and there is hardly anything that seems really important in it. In my opinion, it does not seem that it would hurt much to delete it. Belle tête-à-tête 03:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've just deleted it since it was very old, never implemented and not something we'd even consider today. fr33kman 08:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icons

The article icons that appear on our good, very good, and spoken articles are now showing up at the bottom of the page (at least for me, using Vector). See some examples at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Very Good. Anyone know why? Looking for some comments before I start screwing around with the templates and .css files :) EhJJTALK 21:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seen that happen a few times in monobook but it usually does not last very long. wiooiw (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm also getting it. SimonKSK 21:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, also having this problem in Vector: the icon displays at the bottom for most good or very good articles. On Royal Rumble (2009), the good article icon appears for me just above the infobox, at the very right. —Waterfox (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to have this problem in vector. wiooiw (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It happens to me in both vector and monobook. I am using beta and opera. Check out Royal Rumble (2009). Icon shows up near the top, just above the image, because {{good}} is at the top of the article. On Chrome, the icons show up where they should.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, there where there supposed to be on I.E, but Firefox is off. Battleaxe9872 文/ テ 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vector on IE8/IE6/FF3.5, VGA icons at the bottom but not the GA icons. Monobook on both browsers, all icons touching the top margin. Now the {{administrator}} topicon on the other hand, is a good way below where it should be in FF but perfect in IE. Weird. sonia♫ 04:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting this "glitch" anymore, so like wiooiw said, it should clear up soon. SimonKSK 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Monobook, the icons are touching the very top of the white space for me. In Beta, they are centered between the top of the white space and the horizontal line. This "touching the top" has been going on with the icons for me for a long time in Monobook. Basically it seems to go back to the last time Obento single-handedly tweaked all our icons. Either way (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>_> Why does Waterfox feel the need to add these icons to our comments? SimonKSK 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clearer? If that's against a guideline or a policy, feel free to revert my edits. —Waterfox (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue. I have removed it. It is completely unnecessary formatting and makes no sense. Plus, he should not be adding it to other people's comments. Either way (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for any trouble I may have caused. >_> —Waterfox (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you're not causing any trouble. It's just... pointless. SimonKSK 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-Same as Either way. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the WMF is plans to change the default skin on all the small wikis soon, it may be best to just wait until that happens. EhJJTALK 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't there some talk here about opting out? (can't remember when, too old) :) fr33kman 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This? πr2 (talk • changes) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. By my reckoning there is either no consensus or a slight oppose in that discussion. fr33kman 22:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←Outdent) Why is Vector the default? πr2 (talk • changes) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_87&oldid=8876889"