Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 47

Wikipedia news

Like the en:Signpost - I would like to do a version here. I realise we have Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost but its not quite the same. I would like to organise a similar set-up to the En version. Where we spam subscribers talk pages weekly (maybe monthly to start). Would anyone like to help (especially bots), or does anyone have any objections? Kennedy ^(talk) 10:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple is too small. I have tried to start it up, but it got QD'd (U1) after it was deemed unviable. --  Da Punk '95  talk  10:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. I could make it work. A monthly newspaper would not be too hard to do. Things like DYK show it can work. I will make a proposal (in userspace) an example of what it would be like, so people can get a better idea. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly won't hurt to have something like this, but there's really not a lot that goes on here that won't be known to every regular editor. For example, enwiki has the signpost, because so much goes on in so many different places. Inevitably, of course, because it's such a big community. However, at simple, we don't have that much to comment on (announcements such as the addition of rollback and DYK are all still accessible on this page, because it seldom gets archived often enough for anyone to miss it). A page like Wikipedia:Updates or something could be good to summarise the main points, but we've got to be careful not to make it a duplicate of the pages already in existence. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to do more things with it though that perhaps would not be allowed elsewhere. I won't give much away at the moment, but more shall be revealed soon! Kennedy ^(talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can help. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 11:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! See here for the basic start of the signpost. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should use {{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>NUMBEROFPAGES}} etc. so that when it is put onto talk pages, a record is kept, and it doesn't keep updating. - tholly ^--Talk-- 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, Have changed it over. Kennedy ^(talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'll wave Template:Bulletin about to see what happens. MC8 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, missed out the <includeonly> tags, sorry tholly Kennedy ^(talk) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea in principle, but at the moment maybe something like monthly would work better. Oh and GoblinBot (talk · contribs) will be happy to help (you guessed that was coming!!!). BG^7even 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. I just dont want to do something unjustified as that came against me in my last ENWP ban appeal ('One mention of the Signpost and youre like a bull out of a gate' - Sarah from ENWP). --  Da Punk '95  talk  02:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

All help is much appreciated. Let me know on my talkpage what you would be able to do :) Kennedy ^(talk) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also: Simple News is due to be delivered on the 15th November - Make sure you Subscribe if you want to receive it! Kennedy ^(talk) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind helping, If you do need help, just ask, I'll do anything. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

English Wiki Ad

Hello! I just commissioned this advertisement banner over at En wikipedia and it was kindly created for me by Master of Puppets. I thought I'd show you all to see what you think I hope it encourages more editors to come here as on En many, many users have these on their userpages, so its quite visible. So what do you all think? FSM ^Noodly? 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks super! Well done, and great idea! How many times is it viewed? Is it random? MC8 (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Might just be me, but it cuts off part of the first quotation mark. MC8 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DYK

I'd like to call the communities attention to Bluegoblin7's talk page here and here. He's removed stuff from the navbox under the reason it makes us too much like enWP which is too complicated. Also new entries were this morning separate by lines (----) to better separate them. He removed them and changed the hidden message. When I messaged him about it he again said it makes us too much like enWP which is too complicated but he also added that it's hard on the eye and we use that message to much when the edit bar says use sparingly. I for one find the lines easier to use in more than one way. I discuss how to solve this conflit here. Thank you.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First to clarify: what i said was that the pages are too much like en-wiki, so thats why they went. The line breaks were useful to us, so that's why they were there, and not the lines. BG^7even 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I Support keeping the pages the way they were. Much better to go around and to make sure everything was in order. It was even going well with T:DYK/N, completing 4 updates! – RyanCross (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, i'm sorry, but we are not en wp. I do not care about whether it was working - the thing is is that many users feel that it is overcomplicated, and indeed reasons have been given by some that you've made it so because you want to be an en admin - well, all i can say is is that we dont want en bringing here! We need at most 4 pages - WP:DYK, WT:DYK, T:DYK and T:TDYK, as well as the archives, but we could probably do without WP:DYK and WT:DYK as well. All it needs is careful checking by the updaters, and then it makes life easier. It also stops potential problems with "Where has my hook gone?!?!". It was nice and simple until you got involved. Sorry to put it bluntly but it's true. BG^7even 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are these 'many users'? Everyone here doesn't seem to mind DYK/Next Update except you BG7. Show us who wants it removed and maybe.. FSM ^Noodly? 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They will comment when they are ready... BG^7even 20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to remain civil here but everything you just said in my opinion is B.S., BG7.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

CM16, be very careful. Trying to remain civil would be to NOT post something as offensive as that. It's akin to me saying "look, I want to be civil, but it's blatantly obvious God doesn't exist". If I'm saying something as offensive as that in the first place, I don't exactly 'want' to be civil.

Secondly, I support the removal of Template:Did you know/Next update. What's wrong with just moving them directly to the main page, then to the archives? I'm not a DYK-wiz at ENWP, but frankly, that helps me think outside the DYK box that Ryan knows and loves on ENWP. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 00:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple is not EN, and never will be. One of the things I like about Simple is that it is very informal, adding bureaucratic rules and en:Instruction creep is not good in the slightest. MC8 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that the seeds of the lotus flower have been grown from seeds older than any other plant on record (hundreds of years old) and that its leaves are less sticky than teflon? ~ R.T.G 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and great but what about the sparation of nomination....I don't agree with BG7's opinion. BTW, I apologize for my offensive comment.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I thought the system with Template:Did you know/Next update worked well - it meant that hooks were compiled for the next update and the update would be easier - no fuss about which hook to remove or how long it had been there or whether or not there was balance in the topics covered by the hooks - they could be reviewed as a whole before the update but after verification. Hence I disagree with Gwib and BG7 on this modification to the system that has been in place.

We are still refining what DYK means here - it does mean that the policy of verifiability is upheld. We have also just discussed whether hooks have to be interesting to a reader who might be otherwise unaware of the topic - I think they do. As we develop an understanding it seems a good idea to document this understanding - hooks have to be verified, links have to be provided, hooks have to end with a ?, hooks have to be interesting - each of these refinements comes as editors nominate things that don't gel and we explain why and we let people know in advance before they or somebody else makes a nomination which doesn't make the grade. We don't want people to be disappointed when their nominations aren't accepted - we want them to make nominations which will be accepted! --Matilda (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Matilda. I know I had to fix quite a few errors at T:DYK/N that I didn't notice at T:TDYK because I probably wasn't there to see it. What if it was at T:DYK already. That wouldn't be good. Even though, I don't find it complicated, it's pretty easy, and it's a smooth way to keep things running. – RyanCross (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but why is there an argument that is quickly escalating, just about a single, simple, template? MC8 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not JUST about the template...or at least it wasn't when I started this discussion....when I started it, it was supposed to be about how to separate nominations better also.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  16:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• It has escalated here because one editor claimed he had discussed the changes to the DYK procvess with lots of people. Just not apparently with anybody who was active on the project.--Matilda (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the next update page is fine, so that non-admins can prepare for a new update, to ensure everything is correct. We shouldn't be using the main page as a sandbox, to test to see if it looks ok. I've worked extensively on Did You Know on enwiki, and the next update page is pretty much essential to the smooth running of it. Majorly ^talk 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. But AGAIN we need to discuss how to better separate nominations. I say a line (----) but BG7 disagrees.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at a version with lines [1] and I didn't like it. I found it harder to read not easier. I think ensuring that there is enough space between nominations and using proper indenting is better. --Matilda (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The use two line breaks or something cause one kinda mashes it together and maks it hard to read.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  04:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh... so much contradiction on this page. Just look at some sections below, where users say we are not en-wp. Yet here, we are actively bringing en-wp processes over! Note how all of you have used en-wp's DYK - therefore you know nothing but. New users who want to help with the project will no doubt find multiple pages confusing. And also, RyanCros: Note how you added this section after it was approved by the community without. Therefore, it should be removed and it should regain community consensus before returning. STOP TURNING SIMPLE INTO EN!!! OTHERWISE WE WILL PROBABLY GET SHUT DOWN!!! BG^7even 10:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, and without reading the full discussion, I'd just point out that it's possible to do something that the English Wikipedia also does without "turning simple into en". Like, ya know, building an encyclopedia. Giggy (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) zOMG

I don't contribute to DYK on En and I like the Next Update page. It just makes everything much easier... FSM ^Noodly? 14:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

BG7, please remain civil and don't yell. As for what you said, we will still be our own Wikipedia we just want to do what's easier and what's best for the community. Now, the Next Update page is for the best. And I'll say one last time, can we discuss how to better separate post?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the nominations how they are now. Like what Matilda said, we just have to keep proper indenting to keep everything organized. The lines makes me a bit dizzy when looking at it. So I think we should keep the way it is. – RyanCross (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 18:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least use two line breaks to separate?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as I have already said in several places, we will use two line breaks (i edited the instructions to show this) and to format it is *, *:, *:: etc. As for next update i'll just go with it. Personally I also find it easier to use, HOWEVER I was thinking for the good of the wiki, not my own things. I still do think it's too complex however for this wiki. Thanks, BG^7even

Actually, it should be: *, :*, ::*, etc. or :, ::, :::, etc. – RyanCross (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... what looks best:

• Foo

  Foo

  Foo

or

• Foo

• Foo

• Fooo

or

Foo

Foo

Foo

or, whilst we're at it

• Foo
  • Foo
    • Foo

Which works best?

BG^7even 19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The first option --Matilda (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that the page would be a lot easier to read if people simplified their signatures - there are several that are very distracting. Christian man16's is probably the worst and since he called for formatting to make it easier to read - he could start by toning down his signature. Shapiros10's sig is also distracting. --Matilda (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG, do we have to go through my sig discussion again?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Without the blasphemy we do since you brought up issues of readability at DYK and when I look at the nominations, the thing that makes them most unreadable is the signatures! If you want to start discussing what is easier to read, perhaps you need to look at your own contribution to the page layout.--Matilda (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't change my sig I'm happy with my sig...and it follows WP:SIG. So, respectfully, no I'm not changing it.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  00:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

all very well but then I don't want to hear you views about readability of pages - your sig makes them harder to read and especially in the editing mode - three lines!?! You obviously haven't read WP:SIG either - it doesn't comply - three lines of mark up is too long, you use too much colour. --Matilda (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Matilda is right, and so I will ask you to change it in accordance with policy ChristianMan. Synergy 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy says 2 or 3 lines....which is what it is so no i won't change it.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My 1024x768 brower shows four lines. alexandra (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My 1280x1024 browser shows three.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is not the standard resolution you should be considering when editing wikipedia. Not sure why you have such a hard time making a signature that doesn't make readability horrid. -Djsasso (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is worse. There is one that destroys line spacing and mashes lines together. (User:Samekh) but really ChristianMan, is a border round your sig really necessary? I'm not even sure what symbol is in yellow before it, all it is to me is the standard square when fonts are missing. Kennedy ^(talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nelumbo

Suggest: Articles such as Nelumbo could be moved to pages such as Nelumbo (lotus flower) so as on pages without pictures or other instantly recognisable info the reader had less chance of being confused by the complex (scientific) names. Most persons seeking the lotus flower article for instance will not be scientists and convention on en.wikipedia as I recall is to title articles for maximum chance of search engine hits. ~ R.T.G 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a thought. En does not do this, but it does not have a problem with attracting hits. I suppose it does make things simpler, though it would be an extremely high amount of work. Malinaccier (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is a new trend on the wikipedia because long before I edited anything I looked up Lotus Flower many times and ended up on wikipedia. (I feel the DYK page again). ~ R.T.G 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Why wouldn't you move the article to its common name - ie Lotus flower or even lotus and have the current lotus page as a disambiguation page - ie lotus (other uses) or ...? I don't think adding to the Nelumbo article name helps enough, it should be redirected. --Matilda (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This topic covers a guideline on many articles. Maybe I will but I would be forced then to change any I found from Latin to English (ok I guess that makes sense but on the en.wikipedia they are doing their own thing) If you changed the Latin for English on the en.wikipedia people would want to argue about it. ~ R.T.G 15:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Projects on user pages

Sorry to dig this up but it was just archived as I was editing this page. The last thing I wrote was "ho, hum" but I must say that rather than label the projects unworthy of their space it may be a better concensus to keep them under personal guidance whilst activity is low, and I would disagree with this but I would concede it also. ~ R.T.G 00:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You could merge them all to User:Project? MC8 (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty much how they are anyway ~ R.T.G 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:UpdatedDYKNom and Template:UpdatedDYK

We decided about a week ago that we shouldn't have credits for users. How about giving Template:UpdatedDYKNom (en:Template:UpdatedDYKNom) to users who only nominated hooks and didn't do much (or any) work on and Template:UpdatedDYK (en:Template:UpdatedDYK) if people really worked hard on the article DYK (maybe actually created it or significantly expanded)? Thoughts? – RyanCross (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. If we dont, why does ENWP do? --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak support. Hmmm... it's good in principle, but I still think that for now users don't need rewarding. I still think the talk pages work better. Seeing as pretty much any article is allowed, there really is no point in one for noms, as all you have to do is press "Show any page" and search for a hook. The other one may be more appropriate however a lot of articles may be from en wikipedia. What I propose is we give credits to talk pages, and if the article is tagged as a new article in the nom process, or is clearly a new article, we award a tag. Thoughts? BG^7even 12:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my point: I only think that they should be awarded for either writing a new article, OR, and this isn't in my original thing, it's an afterthough!, they should be awarded if a user has made significant changes to an article to bring it to DYK standard. The odd edit is just pointless, as are nominations. BG^7even 12:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see BG7's point, but any article that has been improved enough to be on the Main Page is an incentive for others to write more. Seriously, every editor who makes any article better for DYK is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. I see absolutely no problem with these templates. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be bold and create the pages. --  Da Punk '95  talk  19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Da Punk: No! Not in this instance when there is already a discussion and vote under way. We also need to change them. I have speedied them. BG^7even 19:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well it'll be before the next update anyway before their ready. And besides - theres 3 supports. That sould be consensus for the moment. --  Da Punk '95  talk  19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - sometimes its just a matter of ensuring that there is a reference to bring the article to DYK standard. Too often articles have been copied from en. At this early stage of DYK's inception I see no point. I think award the DYK to the article as we are doing. If people want to take credit then that is OK but in a sense it is like taking credit for a GA or VGA - sometimes that credit is merited, other times that credit fails to acknowledge the collaboration that went in to making the GA or VGA. --Matilda (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose it must be "Template:Did You Know, next update". Stuff like temp:dykupnom are only for shortcuts and redirects. ~ R.T.G 05:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's not so. See en:Template:WPBiography, which is not a redirect to a page like en:Template:Wikiproject Biography. Of course, that doesn't mean Simple has to do this, but the templates are given names like this on a regular basis. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Banning policy

As far as I can tell, the Simple English Wikipedia does not have a banning policy. Perhaps we should formulate one and add it to Wikipedia:Blocks and bans. We could use the English Wikipedia's banning policy for reference. Malinaccier (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Considering we have banned users here and everything... Majorly ^talk 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but do we really need to reference enWP....I would be banned for no reason cause of it here.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean that we should take parts of the banning policy and bring it here, not that banned users on en should be banned here also. Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, why? Giggy (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a banning policy, or why should enwp banned users not be banned? Majorly ^talk 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm probably a little biased towards any sort of ideas about the banning policy for simple. I do think that the good thing about simple is generally, users banned on one project, of course at the discretion of admins here, are generally not banned on simple for past behavior on another project. I think that if we are to have a banning policy, it may be wise to consider if this is something we'd keep. ס ^Talk 12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

@Majorly- I think the idea of banning a user from this project that have been banned from another is something that the users and admins of Simple should really assess on a case-by-case project, rather than a unilateral method. There are users here, while they were banned on En-wp, have shown they can be trusted. Obviously there are banned users on en-wp that have reason to be banned here, ie, interwiki vandals, or similar circumstances, but I think that a unilateral method is the wrong approach. ס ^Talk 12:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Majorly; my open question is why we need a banning policy. I think I agree with you. Giggy (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So we have a point of reference. Something to go by, when we ban someone. Synergy 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How often do bans take place here? And can't we just use common sense ("Hi. We've had enough of your nonsense. <Evidence, discussion, etc.> You're banned. No more editing. Go away please. Thanks.") on the rare occasion that we do end up banning someone? Giggy (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It never works, and editors walk away confused. Whats common sense to us (en users) will not be to others. Synergy 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not need anything complicated. It can probably go on WP:BLOCK at the bottom. We just need something as a reference, even if it is "In case of a ban, the community or administrators will use their best judgement as to whether or not to ban and the parameters." (simpler of course) Right now, we don't have a single sentence on the matter. Malinaccier (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Opt-in for Global Bots

Wikimedia current operates a Global Bots list. Instead of having to request a bot flag on each project, a user can request the global flag at Meta and is treated as a bot on all projects which allow global bots. Global bots are limited in what they can do; they can only deal with interwiki links and double redirect. Users requesting the flag on Meta must have it on several individual project first and a history of good contributions before getting the global flag.

Each project that want to allow the global bots must opt-in to the process before the bots are allowed on that project. Because of this, community consensus needs to be reached on if we want to allow this here. Most IW bots are already effectively automatically granted the bot flag here if they meet the conditions required for the global so there really would be little change in the process from our point of view. There would likely be a drop in bot requests (not really a major issue) as well as more bots checking us regularly as they no longer would need to go through the application process to work here. Overall, it is likely we would not even notice any change outwardly, but more work would be going on behind the scenes. -- Creol(talk) 02:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Why not? Synergy 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Support --Chris G (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support – RyanCross (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This is much easier, and gets rid of the problem of having to go to every wiki run by the foundation to ask for a bot flag, for bots such as Inter Wiki Bots. — Jonas (talk · proposal) 03:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support--  ✧ ChristianMan16  04:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Of course. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Oh, god, not another vote... MC8 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAs and other Wikipedia

To which role, if any, should past history at other Wikipedias play in adminship requests? Here are some recent examples of this becoming an issue:

• Cassandra – my refusal to name my en account caused what was then the largest RFA to exist (beating Razorflame 8, but Razorflame 9 claimed the record), leading to up to four opposes before most of them were struck. I and those on my side argued that only my contributions here should be factored in and not what I did on the English Wikipedia.

• Giggy – Majorly opposed on the preception that Giggy was just trying to get as many sysop flags as he possibly could on every wiki possible, with two others following his lead.

• Majorly – Began with Maxim's opposition based on his RFC and eventual resignation of the tools over onthe English Wikipedia.

Issues such as RyanCross's early activities on the English Wikipedia (some of which were discussed in RyRy's RFA) or Synergy's xFD closures {see Synergy's RFA) were not factors in their overwhemingly successful RFAs here on Simple. So far as I can remember, at least in Da Punk '95 6, SwirlBoy39 3, and ChristianMan16 3, their status as banned en editors were not major reasons for why they could not muster up the consensus necessary to become admins.

So the question is – should "other wiki history" ever be a consideration, sometimes a consideration, or always a consideration? And why? alexandra (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Never. THIS AINT ENWP! --  Da Punk '95  talk  06:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This concept is bound to bring out two angles. 1. Banned en:wp users claiming second chance and "What they did elsewhere shouldn't matter" 2. most others pointing out the quality of a person is how they carry themselves everywhere.

I'm #2. If someone handed you a gun in my friends house and you shot someone, I am certainly not going to hand you a gun in my house. If you were the type of person to vandalise and sock on en:wp, when you walk in the door, we have the option to ban you on site (admin's discresion in the blocking policy). If we, as a community choose to allow a second chance, accept your past and accept the fact that you have a history you need to prove you are better than. We did not need to allow you here at all and many people just like you were blocked on sight. We gave you a chance and it is up to you to redeem yourself and prove us right. Several people went to bat for ChristianMan to help him regain trust on en:wp because he worked to earn our trust. Whether he had done enough or not is not the issue, but that he was moving forward and people were willing to sign there names to the fact that he was honestly working toward regaining what he had lost is what counts. If a person is walking into a situation with a past, they need to accept that they have to work harder to prove that past is just that - the past. They are starting off in the negative and need to prove themselves more than an unknown user because we can already see they screwed up. Just because they did it somewhere else does not give them a clean 'do-over'. Those were their actions and they need to accept responsibility for what they did and move past it. We all make mistakes at time. The important part is we learn from them and move past them. Those claiming "other sites don't apply" are just trying to hide their past and hope people ignore their mistakes rather than stepping up and being a man (or woman) and doing the right thing to correct the mistakes. Those mistakes will haunt them as people will always base their opinion on both the high and the low, and this makes them have to work much harder to balance the fact that they screwed up that bad before. But it is all on them as they screwed up. They have more to prove and a harder path to prove it as they have already proved to many that they screwed up in the first place. They (and everyone) should be expected to be responsible for their own actions.

Now, all that being said, I would have to bring direct issue to one point brought up originally - Who is Cassandra? Whats all the drama she is hiding through her RfA? <self edit part> Our CU's could learn much without violating policy and our 'Crats are equally trust worthy (although not by legally accepting restriction). Rather than create the entire fiasco that was the "Who is Cassandra", a simple e-mail to someone legally bound to support privacy and respected enough to know to keep quiet even without the legal issues and also respected enough by the community to state "Cassandra's statement about admin on en has been validated but issues exist that further details can not be put forth out of respect for privacy." would have ended that situation immediately. At this point, I can('t) list 20+ en:wp users under secondary-right to vanish accounts. This is mainly under the "I R2Vanished because of issues but am editing under this account in case someone runs a check" emails that pop up occasionally and which was all respect their privacy and honesty. A simple email from the original en: (or simple:) email stating "I am Cassandra" would have ended the issue and been buried the information at the same time. Apparently either the idea did not come up or Cassandra felt she could not trust us.. and if this is the case, I am truely am sorry if she felt she couldn't trust us, but it would have been safe and would have nipped the problem in the bud.

end point: What ever you do, where ever you do it - it is telling of who you are as a person. If you do not want people to treat you poorly because of actions you did anywhere, do not do those action. If you screwed up, expect to have to atone for those actions and be held to different standards. Do the crime, do the time. -- Creol(talk) 07:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Creol completely. Archer7 - talk 10:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So how do we agree whether to allow someone to edit here or not? MC8 (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best to discuss it on a case-by-case basis. ס ^Talk 12:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But how? It seems from Creol's novel above that it's all up to the admins, and at that the first admin that comes across the user. I don't want it to become bureaucratic, but I'd like to know why some are given more chances than others. MC8 (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about editing. This is about being an administrator. People are different on different projects from my experience. Simply because the atmosphere/editing style is so different. There are some people who would never get adminship here because they are simply unsuited to the role, here and anywhere. I've had a lot of trouble on enwiki, I don't deny that. However, it's a separate project. I haven't been perfect here either, but I've been a hell of a lot better than enwiki, simply because it's a nicer atmosphere here (even though I don't get along with everyone here, I feel the community is much more of a community here). While my enwiki problems shouldn't be ignored completely, I disagree they should be a deciding factor in making a decision to support or oppose me. In the end, it's what goes on here that matters. I know I've made similar opposes based on people's actions in other places - I guess I was probably wrong to base opposes on stuff that happened elsewhere. My oppose of Giggy was mainly because I had felt cheated after going out on a limb to try and get on with him after our massive conflict, and having it chucked back in my face. For the record, I'd surely support him now, since he and I have been getting on better, probably even nominating him if interested. I don't like to hold grudges (though I often do) - I just wish everyone could get along and be nice! ☺ Majorly ^talk

(e/c x3)Well, administrators are elected because the community believes they have the judgment to keep the 'pedia working well (block/delete/protect) etc, and their general good judgment. Administrators I'm sure would use their discretion when deciding whether to ban here because of a ban at another project, but I think this should only be done in clear cut cases, ie, persistent vandal, edit warrior, etc. When in doubt, it should really be deferred to the community. Ideally, I think a 2nd chance really should be offered when possible. It's the same principle as with blocking/unblocking users. Unblocks are cheap, but constructive contributors are few and far between. There is more chance of a positive result by letting these users edit, rather than instantly blocking them because of their status on another project. There's little to lose with this approach, and I feel, a lot that can be gained. ס ^Talk 12:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

History on other projects most definately should be taken into account. I dislike the fact that there are editors here who quite openly declare that they are banned on en.wiki. In some cases this is not entirely a bad thing. But using us to thumb their noses at en.wiki is not on. Kennedy ^(talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

@Kennedy- Some users here, who are banned at en.wiki, such as myself, are open about it for transparency reasons. I'm not sure about the other banned users on here, but I don't think they use simple to "thumb their noses at en.wiki". While past behaviour should probably be considered in discussions such as RFA's, this is something that great care should be taken with. The English Wikipedia community, I find, is hard to forgive people, if at all. We really don't want to develop a similar habit. ס ^Talk`

I said that on some occasions its not necessarily a bad thing. But there are some who seem to brag about being able to edit simple.wiki though banned on en.wiki - When reviewing an RfA one has to think "Why is User:XYZ banned on en.wiki?" - "Is there a chance (s)he will do it again?" - "Will giving him/her admin rights be a bad idea?" - I would look at their contributions on the sister projects when voting. Something that I have shown in my opposition to Majorly's RfB. I trust him as an admin. I trust him as an editor. But I think there is too much drama connected to him to promote him to Bureaucrat at this time. Kennedy ^(talk) 10:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I wouldn't be bragging about the fact that I'm banned at en-wp at all, I don't know why others would. It's not a good thing. As for judging past behaviour on other projects, it really should be something that is looked at on a case-by-case basis. We should look at the editor's conduct on another wiki, consider whether it's likely they'd repeat their behavior, and at the same time, look at their editing history here, try to see if they've changed. However, we don't want another Archtransit situation. That said, I've seen a trend sometimes for a user's conduct on other wikis to be used against them here. The important thing, I think, is to find the balance between fairness and trust. Though I've got to say, I'm surprised any banned users on other Wikipedia's are going for RFA's here. I certainly won't be. ס ^Talk 13:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree and disagree. It is a little disconcerting when a banned user at enwiki suddenly pops up at Simple, either to feed his/her addiction to Wikipedia, IRC, whatever, or just to say "in your face enwiki for banning me, look, I can edit, hah hah". Any currently banned users on any WMF projects are pretty much not shoe-ins for adminship. However, past banned users, for example, User:SwirlBoy39 on Wikiquote and an admin on the Commons (I forget who) are proof that behaviour can change. We shouldn't discourage editors from editing here, but some users who have no interest in really building the encyclopedia and are here for the wrong reasons makes simple look like a safe harbour for banned users. That, I believe, is bad, but what's the alternative? Block all users with a low mainspace count? I think not. It's just about using common sense. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Condescending!

The blurb about what Wikipedia is (on the front page) seems very condesgending, almost as if it is being directed at a two year old. It is full of exclamation points. What is up with that? I understand the need for simplicity of language, but overuse of exclamation points is going way too far.— This unsigned comment was added by 71.35.188.112 (talk • changes).

This project is aimed at children, as well as non-native speakers of English. There's only 3 exclamation marks, hardly "full". Majorly ^talk 19:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you word it to say "This is a Wikipedia in simple language but it's for highly intelligent people not 2 year olds!!!", That would be condescending and over use of exclaimation marks. ~ R.T.G 14:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Any article or only content articles?

Should DYKs be any random article (such as stubs) or should DYKs be only content articles? Since most of the articles here on simple.wikipedia are stubs unlike en.wikipedia, should we change the rules for DYK to allow any article become a DYK? What does the community think? – RyanCross (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No way. DYK should only contain articles which aren't stubs and have proper referencing. Everyone who's concerned about "zOMG enwiki" should stop. This is an encyclopedia, and not adopting something because enwiki uses it is pathetic. Articles on the front page should be a taste of some decent verifiable content of reasonable length, or anything could get on. Would an eight-line stub with an external link be showing off the project? I very much doubt it. I think people should stop worrying about how similar/different we are to enwiki and start focussing on the articles themselves; arguing about process does no good in this case. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. More opinions would be appreciated. – RyanCross (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. Juliancolton (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Gotta agree with Peter. I see an ideology here, that "zOMG it's from en.wp, we can't have it" is really silly. A lot on the English Wikipedia works well. As for the DYK thing, articles have gotta be content only articles, with proper referencing. ס ^Talk 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even having this discussion? All the "rules" I can find all say we only accept non-stub and non-vg articles, so it is here why? Support only content articles and reffed articles. Case closed as far as i'm concerned. BG^7even 08:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of DYK is to "hook" readers to a certain article. I don't see much point in making them look at stubs. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Articles must have content and must be referenced with reliable sources. I note we have yet to develop the guideline on Wikipedia:reliable sources here thus in the meantime the guideline at en:WP:RS applies - though I have provided a very simple interpretation at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I think more than three sentences are a good idea but otherwise if referenced and accurate, why not include in DYK - it may lead to expansion and improvement.--Matilda (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikicup

Hi, I was wondering if the Wikicup was still going to take place as I've just seen this, however, it doesn't seem updated. Thanks. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It was called off. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 00:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Donations banner

The option to hide the donations banner is now available in Special:Preferences (logged-in users only), at the bottom of the interface-gadgets section. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I found this. See my comments on the en.wiki Kennedy ^(talk) 11:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Esteban.barahona

I was somewhat disturbed when I saw "simple inglish is for nubs/niubis." written on his page. I didn't know wether or not to remove it. He also added a word (that i removed) to Wikipedia:Basic English alphabetical wordlist‎. Thanks. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 13:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to remove it. In future, the talk page generally should be consulted first before bringing it to community attention, but it was right of you to flag it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My signature

My signature (Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=}) appears in blue, red and turquoise on my web browser (Opera). However, when I occasionaly use Internet Explorer, it appears grey, very light blue, and turquoise. Is there an explanation? thanks. Yotcmdr (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Try using the six-digit color codes instead of "navyblue" and "bluegreen"; I strongly suspect that each browser has a different take for how that name should be rendered. alexandra (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Or, there's an even easier solution: don't use Internet Explorer ;) Just another thing it's not very good at. I'll look up the HEX codes for you if you like? BG^7even 17:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try. Yotcmdr (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you come under trouble, just ping me either on wiki or on IRC. Thanks, BG^7even 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i've changed the color names with Hex codes and it works, thanks a lot. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problems - your welcome :D. In future i'd suggest asking an admin or adding {{helpme}} to your talk page rather than bringing it to community discussion. It doesn't really need the whole community to input and also some users don't like users that worry about signatures and userpages as we're here to build an encyclopedia ;). I don't have that view personally, but just a friendly tip!

Thanks,

BG^7even 18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK - please comment

• I would appreciate extra sets of eyes at DYK. There is POV pushing about what is suitable for the main page. Moreover the article selected is not in fact supported by the cites given at T:TDYK. --Matilda (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference has been replaced. Sexual content should not be suppressed, I can get you a link from an old ST archive where most of our active editors agree with me. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As per the comment on Gwib's talk page, replacing the ref does not make a reliable source that says The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. - another source which was in the article was selectively quoted from but it too stated our experts explain why medical opinion remains to be convinced. - the ref was very selectively quoted from - a dishonest practice leading to unencyclopaedic entries.--Matilda (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So now we bring up one hook at DYK? *sigh* this should at least be about what can and cannot get on the Main Page. There is nothing wrong with it, we are not censored. And at the current speed of updates, it will have been archived by tomorrow. I also turn your attention to the archives, where a similar article has already been through the cycle. BG^7even 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Very basic question: Are we discussing that Gräfenberg Spot does not meet the criteria for inclusion, and should therefore be modified so it can be included, or is this about Gräfenberg spot being unsuitable for inclusion, as some people might be offended by it? --Eptalon (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as it looks to me, it's the latter not the former. ס ^Talk 19:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Both issues are relevant. I certainly brought it here as an unsuitable topic for the front page. It becomes doubly unsuitable when it isn't scientific or encyclopaedic. --Matilda (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to create a debate with what I said in DYK, so I think we should vote and forget about it. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil :) ס ^Talk 19:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not another !vote! WP:VIE. All we need to do is re-word the hook slightly so it's not as in-your-facey and then it's fine. AS I said at DYK, don't visit if you don't want to see things like this. We're an encyclopedia, not a censored-kid-friendly-site. BG^7even 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe voting is evil, but it's effective. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you all just CALM DOWN! A the moment I feel like I'm a failure, that Everything I do creates tension. you pious, uptight people, from Gwib's page; we don't want this to turnout badly. We don't want to start swearing, or do we? Because I've had enough. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yotcmdr this has nothing to do with what you said...and I disagree; when they just threatened to close the project y'all came to defend the project as a place for children and now y'all want to add something inappropriate for children to the main page....it's one thing to have an article under this "We are not censored" rule but to direct them to it is, I believe, not what that rule was intended for. Please reconsider...including what you would want for your kids.--  ✧ ChristianMan16  20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, Some people, including doctors, don't believe that the G-spot exists. This is what the article states. Yotcmdr (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of DYK: you read a hook, get interested, click on the article link, read more, find out new things. Otherwise it's all a bit pointless. It's Did you know? , not You already know: . - tholly ^--Talk-- 21:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this isn't about knowing, but about believing. It is a different matter. Yotcmdr (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo project?

Hi, i was thinking wouldnt it be nice if Simple english wikipedia really tried to find good images for our different articles subjects(almost like a project). i mean simple english wikipedia will perhaps always be a bit behind in the making of articles but we could be better at fixing photos to our articles. Like anything from Jade Goody,Nikki Grahame to Neil Entwistle or Olof Palme and United Airlines Flight 93 a whole range of articles etc etc....--Sinbad (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Making it a goal to find images/photos for all articles. In a sort of "list of articles with no image".. or similar.. So that we have a goal and a standard. Just an idea.--Sinbad (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but if we made a list, it would be very long as i think most articles don't have a picture. Yotcmdr (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) feel free to add but please use images from Commons unless there is an excellent reason why the image is not freely available. The photos or images should clearly illustrate the article: I understand the purpose of this wikipedia is primarily about articles and providing reading material. I have no objection to articles being illustrated but I would have thought in the first instance there was plenty of room for improvement in the content, ensuring it is not merely a stub and it meets our policies of verifiability and neutrality of content.--Matilda (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I myself always try to find a picture when writing a new article, but sometimes it is not possible. For example books, videogames, DVDs, CDs etc. - all these things have non-public domain covers and therfore cannot be posted on commons/used on here. FSM ^Noodly? 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Or something like a Category:Articles without images and Category:Articles with images.. or something similar?--Sinbad (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If i get some feedback on that and get an OK to go,i can create those two Categories later. In that way people can check out both the article they are looking at and other articles under the category. And more and more artices can be applied as time goes by--Sinbad (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Spoiler}} template?

Just wondering, why do we use this template? Not sure why we should have a spoiler warning in articles. Other thoughts? ס ^Talk 08:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also just to let you know the show/hide button doesn't work in all browsers, in some cases you can't see the text at all --Chris G (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It could be changed to something without a show/hide button, but I really don't see the need for this template at all. ס ^Talk 08:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I made a comment about this previously but there was no response. I think we should do away with spoiler warnings altogether. If someone is reading a Wikipedia article about a film, episode of a TV series, etc., it is probable that they either want to find out or at least do not mind knowing the plot. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk–09:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't really true at all, if I want to know who the author is or when it was written etc, I may not have yet read the book. I do not support removing this template. -Djsasso (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I objected to these ridiculous show/hide tags when they first came out but nobody listened. alexandra (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should follow en:wiki's policy on spoiler templates and not have them. People are smart enough to realize that a section titled "Plot" will describe what happens in the book, movie, episode, etc in a fair amount of detail. Spoiler templates seem wholly redundant, and if consensus is to keep them (for whatever strange reason) they absolutely should not be in a hide/show format. · Tygrrr... 19:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot isn't a word everyone would understand the meaning, especially non english people. I think they're good to keep. I hate it when somebody tells me the end of a story. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 19:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here is to RFD the template, and see what consensus says. ס ^Talk 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(to Yotcmdr) Then perhaps we need to figure out what the simple, widely understood word for the section should be. Some possibilities include: Plot, Summary, Story, Review, Outline, Action. Some are better than others, and I bet we could come up with more. The goal would be to find a widely understood header so that people know what they're getting into when they read it and realize that they will be reading plot details. I do not believe keeping spoiler templates is the solution we're seeking, however. · Tygrrr... 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of those are better. Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you which one's the best because I'm English. It might also be confusing not to have a warning as people may think it is more like a synopsis which doesn't tell you much about the stroyline. Yotcmdr (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

hardwords template proposal

hi all, i find some articles require necessary hard words, nouns usually, for which translation would be hard and misleading. ex. skiing and the word 'mogul' or Guitar and 'fret'.

i propose a new template that would list the necessary difficult words in a small box of somesort. something like Template:Hardlist|word1|word2}}  ? with each word linking to simple wiktionary? i dont know the procedure for creating such a thing.

good/bad idea? is it difficult to make?-- cheers.Spencerk (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We might be able to do that, but it may just be easier to directly link each "hard word" to Simple English Wikitionairy, using [[wikt:word]]. ס ^Talk 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the problem is that Simple English Wiktionary doesn't contain definitions for a lot of hard words anyway. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 08:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

how?Spencerk (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing Simple English Wikipedia

On the proposal for closure of this project (lol) someone has suggested changing the name to accomodate other languages in simple. I said I would link it here[2] ~ R.T.G 01:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Imho i dont think it would work. A user is here for simple english but finds, say, a simple french page. It would confuse them. Make a seperate simple wikipedia for other languages (or why not change this to en.simplepedia.org ?)

Thanks, BG^7even 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes BG, your suggestion is also what that person suggested, see link above. Also he suggested domain names like simplepedia and easypedia etc. Perhaps it would step closer to popularising the Simple project also. I am sure that fr. es. and de. would make something of it in time. ~ R.T.G 14:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a suggestion, more getting your point made a bit clearer - i don't think it's a good idea as I said. Speaking on IRC last night, with input from native speakers of German and French, they said their languages are not simple... so I don't think it would be a good idea... BG^7even 14:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that type of opinion is common among wikipedians today. It is of course nonsense about not acknowledging simplicity in their language. I am glad that these awful opinions, as the very same nonsense was started by George the Dragon, have not come so close to shutting this one down. Well done Creol for bringing the attention to it (was Creol no? Or whoever well done that one). No need to be exclusive. You should make your opinions on the page really. ~ R.T.G 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It was me who suggested that on the meta page. The problem with the current name is that it is ambiguous: the word simple is also used in at least three other languages I know (spanish, french, catalan). It may not be a big deal, but if we want to make "simple" a language we have to provide a better specification to make it qualify as a Controlled language, a member of the family of Artificial languages, like Basic English itself; and to me it is not exactly clear the level of "simplicity": I think the level should be children at grades 4-9 (upper elementary to middle school) and middle level ESL students. The vocabulary at this level is around 4500 words, and of course they know what are tears, blood, and sweat. Lwyx (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Made a draft page for a proposed process. It's important to keep it simple though, so the process here will be rather simplified. The draft page is here, feel free to edit it or make comments on it. We do have disputes now and then, and having some sort of process for solving them, even if it's not used often, is a good idea, I think. ס ^Talk 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying its a bad idea, but it amuses me that this topic has come up with almost every new experienced user for the last few months. -Djsasso (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could have sworn it was suggested by the same person a while ago... *shrugs* I don't think we need a write up to tell us how to solve disputes, yet. Giggy (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The page is also intended to give some help with disputes that need solving, perhaps something like a simplified medcab, I'm not too sure yet. It's something that really needs more discussion. There has been increased opinions it may be needed though, which is why I made the page. If there's no community consensus for it at this time, I can mark it with {{essay}}. ס ^Talk 08:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. I've seen a number of smaller disputes here and some that are ongoing. DR is there to tell you how to handle it when it happens. Image the time that it begins to happen, and there is no process. I'd rather having something set up right now, then to wait until things get so bad, that the process and information gets rushed; and we have an unworkable system with complex results and measures. Synergy 21:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be no issue with this. We won't need it much no doubt, but something can be written up at least. As long as we don't have anything like a "committee" or something; it should just be a guideline as to what to do. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Template standardisation

A lot of the templates here use different standards. I think it might be best if we standardise these, make them somewhat easier to edit, by converting the current templates to ones using the {{ambox}}, {{ombox}}, etc, format. I've started some already, if there aren't any objections in a day or so, I'll continue. ס ^Talk 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of template:policy before {{ombox}} had been installed and after ombox had been installed. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 06:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. Looks neater IMO --Chris G (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain message templates need to "pop" while others are better suited being more subdued. Policies and guidelines notices need the pop screaming "Hey you! Read this now!", while cleanup and wikify can be quieter. And all of them need a border. Message boxes should be just that - boxes. I'm not seeing a border that makes a box. I am just seeing text floating around aimlessly on the page. To me, this is not a good thing, text is small and defenseless, it need protection to prevent it from wandering off. It needs borders. -- Creol(talk) 08:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out a template that lacks a border? I know {{imbox}} does use rather strong borders, is this what you want? ס ^Talk 08:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, perhaps purge your cache? Mediawiki:Common.css was updated. ס ^Talk 08:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine; no objections from me. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Creol's issue is with {{ombox}} (see Gwib's diffs). Giggy (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, lack of a thicker border can be altered, if that's what's wanted. It would probably require the Common.css to be altered though. Or some templates could not be completely standardised, in favour of certain features (thicker border for policy templates). ס _Talk 12:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I agree with the concerns about {{ombox}}. See for example Wikipedia:Solving disputes. The template has no border (which isn't always a problem, but in this case, I believe it is), and it is left-aligned, which looks unprofessional and messy (at least in my browser, Mozilla Firefox 3). I don't think these should be changed until the alignment issue is fixed, at least. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that issue, Peter. Printscreen of what I see. Try clearing your cache. ס ^Talk 20:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All fixed my end. :) Thanks for the tip. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Refreshing took care of it here, it just took about an hour to do it though (my system is weird with css refreshing.. ). As to the style changes, both ambox and ombox accept a style setting to over-ride the basic style. I shifted the style on {{policy}} to show as bold green borders again. -- Creol(talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• facepalm* I completely forgot about the style paramater. It looks like all the kinks are sorted out, and i cant see any likely reasons for objection. I'll start converting the templates over in about an hour or so, when i get home. Let me know if there are any issues. ס ^Talk 02:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, they should all be done now, I think. I've got all the ones I can see. If I've missed any that should use an {{ambox}}, {{tmbox}} etc, let me know. ס ^Talk 06:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

I typed in the accurate name for an image but it is not working. How is this? 79.68.93.46 (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You typed in the wrong name. They were both 750pix, no 750px. They are fixed now. -- Creol(talk) 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPP

There's a page in en.wiki where you can request page protection (which is WP:RPP). Is there a page similar to one here? - Æåm Fætsøn (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Admin Noticeboard is usually best. -- Creol(talk) 11:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, no need for one here. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)