Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 6

help!!!!

i need help finding a website for chinese ancient navy!!!

We can't really help you there, but the people over at the English Reference Desk might be able to help you. PullToOpen^Talk 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Navigation bar

The navigation bar does not show the usual, simple wording, but wording similar to en.. Why is that so? Is it intentional or a mistake? The life of brian 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Which navigation bar?--TBCΦtalk? 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The one to the left. An administrator needs to go to MediaWiki:Sidebar, click edit, then click save to fix it. J Di 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Archer7 - talk 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

English/Simple english

Why exists the English wikipedia and this Simple English Wikipedia? --62.14.151.136 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

English WP has many articles. Some of these articles, are very special. They may be hard to understand. People who have learned English as a second language, may find SE Wikipedia easier to understand. -- Eptalon 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia -- Eptalon 15:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Is it possible to find a list of all templates or shortcuts? Or both? Please help me, I've been helping this wiki out a lot but I don't know much about shorcuts and things like that yet. -- APT41790 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You can use All Pages to find both. For the wikipedia shortcuts, use namespace (Main) and start at WP. (all WP: shortcuts are main space articles redirected to Wikipedia: articles). For templates, use the namespace template. -- Creol(talk) 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Table classes

Could an administrator copy some of the stuff from en:MediaWiki:Common.css to MediaWiki:Common.css so that the table classes on Simple English Wikipedia are the same as on English Wikipedia? J Di 14:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wiktionary

Netoholic (talk · contribs) deleted Template:Move to Wiktionary on June 25 2006, but there's no reason in the deletion log. Does anybody know why this template was deleted and if it would be okay to recreate it? —This unsigned comment was added by J Di (talk • contribs) 15:33, January 8, 2007 (UTC)

Netoholic did disagree with SEWiktionary, but that template doesn't appear to be specific to that. One of the major arguments he had with that template's creator was for creating too many policies etc, so that's probably the reason. I can't really see any problem with it, so I'll undelete it unless someone comes up with a good reason. Archer7 - talk 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is SEWiktionary related. Restored. Archer7 - talk 17:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Added note: we also have template:Dicdef which is similar in function (but not with the pretty colors and a whole lot less words, but it comes with a free stub template.). And Netoholic's words on the subject may help explain it a little.. Archive 3 - about halfway down that topic, just look for 25 June. -- Creol(talk) 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know whether we should just use Dicdef now, I forgot about that one. As you can see from the archived discussion, this decision for deletion was probably based on Netoholic's personal opinion. Archer7 - talk 18:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Link FA

I can only see one discussion about {{Link FA}}, and it wasn't a long one either, so I'd like to know what people think about making this template work properly and using it. J Di 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time I gave up after a short attempt, it is a complex template, and the benefit is not really there,atm -- Eptalon 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"New changes"

I think that "Last Changes" sounds better.

Or what about Latest Changes? Rimshot 14:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary template

It seems that many of the BE 1500 words should have links to Wiktionary for greater detail. I'm wondering: do we have a template to direct people to the corresponding Wiktionary or Simple English Wiktionary page? Tygartl1 03:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

{{wiktionary}}. J Di 14:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

On January 9 2007, Blockinblox deleted

G-spot vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
with no reason, and

Egg vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
with the reason "This is the simple encyclopedia, not the vibrator encyclopedia". I saw a small bit of one of the articles on the vandalism IRC channel, which started with an image and the text, "G-spot vibrator is a sex toy, which vibrates for giving pleasure to a woman through her g-spot stimulati..." and this made me think that these articles may not have been deleted in accordance with the deletion policies as there is no evidence to suggest that these articles were quick deletion candidates. I left a message on his talk page asking about the deletions. Blockinblox made ten edits over the nine hours that followed. None of them were a reply, so I left another message asking for a reply. He eventually replied on my talk page, saying that the two articles he deleted were "purely pornographic" and contained "no other redeeming information of any kind that might make them compatible with the Simple English project". It was his last sentence, "...we have no obligation to be forced to cater to exclusively pornographic content.", that made me think he was using his own personal opinion to decide whether or not the articles he deleted were worthy of inclusion on Simple English Wikipedia. I replied, asking him to reconsider his decision and telling him that I felt he was making a decision that should be made by the community. He reiterated his point that the articles were "strictly pornographic / instructional", and added that G-spot vibrator included spam links. He said that he would only undelete the article if there was community consensus to even though the community would not know what was to be undeleted until after there was consensus. Because of this, I asked Blockinblox if he could undelete the article for a short period so I could decide for myself whether the articles were worth attempting to gain community consensus to restore. I found his reply to be condescendingly offensive, him stating that as I am not an administrator I would have to make that decision based on the articles' titles. I told him that as he clearly didn't want to help resolve this issue as quickly as possible, I would ask another administrator to look at the deleted articles and tell me whether Blockinblox was right in speedy deleting them. I have not been able to speak to any administrators about this on IRC, so I am bringing this issue to Simple talk so that other members of the community can comment and hopefully help end this. J Di 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to side with J Di, it should be restored. Somitho 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. NPOV. This article presumably describes something that is at least as important as an xbox ;-) Sorry chaps! Sue W 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you have chosen to take this route in an attempt to destroy this encyclopedia and fill it with content of this type. We should not be forced to have articles about how to use dildoes and vibrators and where to buy them, complete with spam links to websites selling them. There are plenty of places available already for people to get this information if they need it, but we are not going to be responsible for propagating this filth. I strongly advise you to stick to more encyclopedic material, because this is not welcome here. As far as I can tell your goal is really to be offensive, but we have no obligation to allow offensiveness and not be allowed to complain about it. I know your type all too well, you think you have a God-given right to offend everybody and no one may challenge you or resist your agenda. Well you are heading for a big clash if that is what you are determined to do to this wikipedia. Blockinblox - talk 16:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd guess that these articles were probably largely redundant with the existing Vibrator (sensual) and thus any 'new' content could have been merged in there. However, the attitude displayed immediately above isn't helping anyone. Try discussing differences of opinion rather than insulting and attacking those who disagree. --70.111.36.146 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is the "simple English" encyclopedia, not the "English encyclopedia for simple people": users don't need to be protected from "filth", they need to be protected from excessive verbiage and pointless prolixity. The attitude displayed above is needlessly confrontational, and on other Wikipedias would likely bring some form of sanction down on the user. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for overreacting but that is what usually happens when people are forced to be exposed to something that offnds them, it kind of boils their blood, which is why it probably doesn't belong here, whether or not that is what your intention is. But I have calmed down, taken a deep breath, and the proper procedure to follow would be see what the community as a whole thinks at Wikipedia:Request for undeletion, I promise to accept and abide by whatever the community standard is on this question. Blockinblox - talk 17:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A request for comments has been created at m:Requests for comments/Blockinblox on Simple English Wikipedia. J Di 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand this is a really controversial thing, and mostly because it is related to sex. But sex was always such a topic. You know, now I can't think of a topic, which would not be so controversial. For example, if we take xbox - it has a separate article, though it is a simple gaming console from Microsoft. If you look at iPod - it has a separate article, though it's just a media player. Look at Katana, colichemarde and so on - types of swords. However, you all understand, that no one would merge all these articles with their 'parent' articles, as, in these cases 'Game console', 'Portable Media Player' and 'Sword'. All I want to say that almost everything related to sex will be doomed to controversy... By the way, did you see the article on Clitoris? Is that not porn? I think these few human resources the simple English wikipedia has are directed the wrong way. I guess you know what to do. Thanks. Siliconov 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting choices for examples. For now, Xbox does have its own, but other systems such as the Sega Genesis have had their articles merged into the main article on Sega. The article Game console would be too large if we kept all of sega, sony, microsoft, and nintendo articles on game consoles in it. It would need to be split and the main consoles currently (xbox, x360, ps2, ps3, wii, gamecube) would have enough information to warrent full articles. On iPod, there is enough information for a full article. There is not enough information though for a seperate article on the iPod mini and the iPod nano so they should be listed in the main article. Katana you created personally just before using it as an example here. You even went so far as to note on it that you hoped it warranted its own article... At a time 20 or 30 years from now, Xbox will likely be in an article (on some weird scary scifi futuristic version of wiki) on Microsoft consoles. iPod will likely be under "ancient music players" with the phonograph and 8 tracks (and oddly Katana still gets its own article... sharp and pointy is always a good thing it seems). For now, these items are for the most part famous. In the media they define what their main topic is. They require seperate articles, articles such as the deleted ones (and the sega genesis/master system) do not. -- Creol(talk) 08:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the deleted articles are notable enough to merit a separate article. Why not redirect/merge them to the Vibrator (sensual) article instead ?--TBCΦtalk? 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is here. The two articles in question aren't notable enough for inclusion at our current state. (If you need proof, look at the woeful quality of the all-encompassing toy). Also, I feel that we've had a lot of random sex toy-themed articles popping up. We're an encyclopedia; if people want to find out about sex toys, they can just look it up with a search engine. PullToOpen^Talk 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about this. The issue is the process that was used to delete information and the way that a user was treated when he/she asked about the deletion. Yes, sex may be controversial. Same with many issues. It is probably more important that an encylopedia like this should treat such issues without a POV. I heard something like "we don't want lots of pages each with a few lines about sex toys". That's a POV. It could also be said that if people want information about computer games machines that they can use a search engine. And so on...however, rhetoric and argument aside, neutral information is what we are working for, yes?

I do not doubt that the persons who had this disagreement are both worthy contributors. They are both very valuable to the community. Demonstrably so. I would like this issue to be brought to a conclusion that would make anyone proud to continue working here. I believe that an apology is called for, and should be accepted. I will go first. I am sorry for making a lame joke about the xbox. The attempted levity didn't help. Sue W 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Sue W, especially about the fact that maybe all of us have overreacted here. So let me also apologize to everyone I might have somehow offended. Blockinblox, I'm sorry for offending you, as I am sure I did it with my article, but I'd like to say that I'm so active about restoring the articles only because, in my opinion, they were too quickly deleted. If they will be restored and then voted for deletion, I will NOT argue with such decision, only because it was a decision of the whole community.

And dear PullToOpen, I'm also sorry, but just about everything, what this encyclopedia contains, can be looked up in a search engine. As you know, not this is the point of simple.wikipedia. The point is to explain certain terms, to people with limited knowledge of English. I already know, that the task is not among the easiest, but I think that's what we are here for. So let's end this dispute with a virtual hand shake and go on with our work. Sil 09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I owe Sil an apology -- what I wrote on his talk page in the heat of the moment was really a response to User:Green Tanya who recreated one of the deleted articles. After I deleted it the second time, I then read her user page. Then I noticed that Sil had at that same moment recreated the other deleted article. Sil, I initially assumed that Green Tanya was your sock and her user page was your own statement of purpose, which set me off, but looking back it appears most of your contributions have been worthwhile. BTW I still think if the terms redirect and are explained briefly on the larger article, it will be enough for those with limited English, since as several editors have pointed out, these specific objects are of minimal notability on their own. Blockinblox - talk 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been six days, the undeletion request can be closed now. J Di 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The following has been tranwikied from Requests for comments/Blockinblox on Simple English Wikipedia at

Meta-Wiki

Statement of the dispute

Administrator Blockinblox on Simple English Wikipedia speedy deleted at least two articles that did not appear to be speedy deletion candidates. The two articles are G-spot vibrator and Egg vibrator. After asking him about this, Blockinblox said that he deleted the articles because he felt they were incompatible with the project, purely pornographic and spammy in nature, and because Simple English is "not the vibrator encyclopedia". I thought about what he said and asked him to restore the articles so I could see if undeletion was worth pursuing. He said that as I am not an administrator, I would need to decide based on the title. Blockinblox deleted the articles again after they were recreated, despite them not being valid speedy deletion candidates (a recreated article can not be speedy deleted more than once unless it has been deleted as a result of a deletion debate). At least four other users have now spoken out against these actions, and in a discussion on the community talk page, he left an uncivil comment saying I had an agenda that I wouldn't let anybody resist. J Di 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome

I would like the two articles to be restored and deletion debates started so that the community can decide whether or not the articles are appropriate for the encyclopaedia, rather than one administrator doing what he feels is right and refusing to have his actions fairly reviewed.

Evidence of disputed behaviour and trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Log of G-spot vibrator
2. Log of Egg vibrator
3. simple:User talk:Blockinblox#Articles you recently deleted -- initial request to undelete the articles
4. simple:User talk:J Di#Speedily deleted articles -- continued discussion on my talk page
5. simple:User talk:Siliconov -- telling a user that recreation of the articles will be treated as vandalism
6. simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk#Deletion review -- discussion on the communnity talk page
7. diff -- comment left on Simple talk by Blockinblox

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Quick deletion
2. Wikipedia:Be kind -- proposed policy, page inactive since October 13 2006, similar to

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I have calmed down after my initial shock at being exposed to things I didn't want to have to, and have now promised to abide by whatever the community standard is, if those who want the articles undeleted will only follow the proper procedure by listing the deleted article at simple:Wikipedia:Request for undeletion and arrive at a consensus.

By the way, the standard that simple has always followed is that any article that is speedily deleted, if recreated, can be speedily deleted again, and even protected, we have done this with many articles that all occupy exactly 15 bytes on the 'Shortest pages' list. Blockinblox 17:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Seriously, I can't see what the fuss is about. I was a little disappointed with Blockinablox's attitude at first, especially in his postion as an admin, but he has since calmed down, and as there seems to be consensus on Simple I don't believe this RfC is necessary. doesn't even exist on en-wiki. --Majorly 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. I can't really see anything that needs Meta involvement at this stage. Everything seems OK now. Archer7 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3. I can't see any problem, It's ok for me, too --dario vet (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
4. This doesn't really seem like the appropriate place for this. I mean, there's a discussion going about this at Simple. Nishkid64 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
5. There is no need to get Meta involved here. This is simply a contested admin action. PullToOpen 22:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

The deletion of these articles is more a matter of notability than subject matter. Unless an articles page is large enough to need to be split up or a specific variety of the subject matter is of considerable note to validate getting a separate entry, there is no need for separate pages for every conceivable variation of an item. If the article on "Pen" was only 1K long, there should be no reason to have 10 other pages each on a type of pen; all the pages should be merged to one. At the time the original pages were created, and during most of the early issues surrounding the matter, there was not even a page on the main topic. Simple did not have a page on vibrators, and yet it had 2 pages on types of vibrators. Neither of which listed why they were notable. No links on either the simple pages nor the en:wiki page on one of the two (only one is listed on en:wiki) list any links to coverage of the subject from any reliable sources. The only links supplied were to blogs on the subject.

The quick deletion policy states that if something is not notable it qualifies for QDelete. While the rule (A4) as written does not specifically mention Items (as opposed to people, companies, etc), it is commonly used to cover all types of subject matter. There is a clause in the rule that if not everyone believes the item to be not notable then it should be listed on Requests for Deletion. In none of the posts I have seen on this matter has one person stated they believe the subject is notable so that clause should not have come into play (yet).

Repetitive deletion of articles on the sole basis that the article was previously deleted (Rule G4) does not apply to articles which were originally QDeleted. Only articles which went through RdF can be re-deleted under the rule listed. This has no little impact here though as the re-posted article is an identical match to the original. As such, it is no more notable now then it was the first time it was posted and should still be QDeleted on sight under the rule on Notability.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorsed as creator of summary Creol 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. I fully agree with the summary given above. I do not see any reason for meta involvement, at this stage. Articles on sexually-oriented content are often discussed. The usual argument brought forward is that the content might discomfort or startle unsuitable viewers. Apart from that, at that point in time there already was an article on vibrators. It would have been easy to add additional sections to that article, rather than creating new ones. Let me also note that images were inappropriately uploaded to SimpleWP. -- Eptalon 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   Vibrator (sensual) did not exist when the articles were first created, and this is only a request for comment so more people can comment on the situation. J Di 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

   I understand this is a really controversial thing, and mostly because it is related to sex. But sex was always such a topic. You know, now I can't think of a topic, which would not be so controversial. For example, if we take xbox - it has a separate article, though it is a simple gaming console from Microsoft. If you look at iPod - it has a separate article, though it's just a media player. Look at Katana, colichemarde and so on - types of swords. However, you all understand, that no one would merge all these articles with their 'parent' articles, as, in these cases 'Game console', 'Portable Media Player' and 'Sword'. All I want to say that almost everything related to sex will be doomed to controversy... By the way, did you see the article on Clitoris? Is that not porn? I think these few human resources the simple English wikipedia has are directed the wrong way. I guess you know what to do. Thanks. Siliconov 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

   Since this question is not directly related to this issue, I have started a new section below. --Eptalon 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by MaxSem

I completely don't understand why this RFC is taking place here on Meta. Controversy around deletion/undeletion of couple of articles is definitely within local community's scope, and there's no real reason to take this affair to Meta because no foundation principle is violated. Unfortunately, events around Netoholic's bureaucratship when stewards were forced to act like space cowboys and decide themselves if Netoholic should be desysopped made a lot of people on simple: think that screaming bloody murder on Meta can help with resolution of local conflicts. It's not true. Neither WMF board nor developers nor stewards nor meta sysops can solve such disputes. Take this to your local community, and do your best to reach consensus. Intervention can only make things worse. I propose that this RFC be closed or transwikied back to simple: ASAP. MaxSem 08:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Aphaia 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC). They, I assume, will be happy with transwiking or just closure of this RfC for now, since now they are trying to solve it locally. See also talk and my usertalk. --Aphaia 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
2. TBC 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC) I agree that this page should either be transwiki'd or closed. However, as for the comment regarding Netoholic, I'd like to note that we users on Simple Wikipedia couldn't really do anything on our local wiki as Netoholic was the only active bureaucrat, thus we felt it was best to discuss the issue on Meta. --TBC 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
3. This is basically the idea I had. I'm in the process of tranwiking the page to Simple. Nishkid64 21:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is sercuirty!

I am really wondered about the edit policy of wikipedia. Everyone is allowed to make changes, but what if someone update invalid informations. Wikipedia team might know some well known informations, but they wouldnt be able to know about some information not being famous such as they wouldnt know about a small town in south africa. How wikipedia manages this issue? Will it be updated with invalid informations. If yes, then this might harm the reputation of wikipedia, because its widely used by researchers as well.

I have know clue good question!

Obvious hoaxes and false statements are usually detected quickly via "Recent Changes". Users are also encouraged to cite their sources; if not other users will tag their edits with the {{Citation needed}} template.--TBCΦtalk? 18:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was lsitening to the radio quite a while ago, and they were talking about how some guy typed that his boss killed JFK, but then erased it. I really think that, even though I love the fact that mistakes can be changed, they need to do something different.--TCastanzo 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All revisions are logged. People can see them, and see the changes. Threats, etc, are usually dealt with quickly, once they become known. My usual approach is an indefinite block of the user, as well as reporting it to meta, so they can deal with it. --Eptalon 21:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling country variants

Greetings! There may be a FAQ on this but I can't find it. Is there a standard for spelling localization? Are we using U.S. or U.K. variants (or both?)

I have seen some items using, for example, the following markup: [[humour|humor]] which shows the first version as a hyperlink and the second version as a tooltip when the mouse moves over the link. Is this recommended? Should I use [[humour||U.S. version: humor]] or somesuch? SuW 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Both get used quite frequently. It appears to be up to the original editor who created the linked page and the editor creating the link which form to use. The dual spelling in linking is only because that editor wants to link to a word spelled one way when he spells it another way. Most likely in that case, an American editor linking to a page from an English editor. Most times, one spelling redirects to the other, so it really is not that big of a deal, but there could be cases where each spelling is on a different topic. -- Creol(talk) 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up untagged images

Is there an easy way to notify uploaders of untagged images?--Jusjih 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads are frowned upon, upload to commons, please -- Eptalon 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We've even hidden the upload link. I don't think it'll be a problem here. Archer7 - talk 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiding the upload link does not automatically previously uploaded untagged images. The UntaggedImages tool has found the following images to be cleaned up:

• 2004-03-07 03:20, SimonMayer: PAFC Badge00.jpg: untagged!
• 2004-10-10 21:11, Saintswithin: Wiki-simple-logo.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2004-10-10 21:11, Saintswithin: Wiki-simple-logo2.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2004-10-10 21:39, Saintswithin: Wiki-simple-logo3.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2004-10-11 10:53, Saintswithin: Wiki-simple-logo4.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2004-10-26 19:21, Saintswithin: Simple-wiki-logo-thumb.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2004-10-26 19:27, Saintswithin: Simple-wiki-logo-thumb-2.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2004-10-27 10:30, Saintswithin: Simple-wiki-logo-thumb3.gif: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2005-02-12 08:35, Netoholic: Wiki-simple-logo5.png: not tagged, but indicates GFDL
• 2005-08-05 23:31, NickGorton: NickGortonVC2005.jpg: untagged!
• 2005-08-05 23:32, NickGorton: Nick Gorton5 8 05.jpg: untagged!
• 2005-11-04 23:58, Private Butcher: QPPB.jpg: untagged!
• 2005-11-05 00:58, Private Butcher: GuamMap.png: untagged!
• 2006-07-19 10:43, Tdxiang: Wikipedia.ogg: untagged!
• 2006-07-19 10:55, Tdxiang: Pokemon.ogg: untagged!
• 2006-07-19 11:04, Tdxiang: Dissolution of the monasteries.ogg: untagged!
• 2006-07-19 11:13, Tdxiang: Sun.ogg: untagged!
• 2006-07-19 11:21, Tdxiang: Demonstration.ogg: untagged!
• 2006-10-01 07:57, Netoholic: Wiki.png: no license tag!
• 2006-10-12 01:39, Tdxiang: Fencing.ogg: untagged!

As an admin of Wikimedia Commons, I have to remind that Wikimedia Commons cannot practically claim fair use, so if this site does not allow local image uploading, I would like to suggest disallowing fair use of others' copyrighted images.--Jusjih 15:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the image in the clitoris article be considered pornographic?

Hello,

SimpleWP has an article on clitoris, which explains a few basic concepts about it. This article also has an image of a human vulva, which amongst other things, shows where the clitoris is. It also shows a stretched out vulva, so that quite a few of the female sex parts are visible. The question has been raised if this image (from commons) could be considered pornographic. According to SimpleWP pornography is made up of thing that make people think about sexual intercourse. In my opinion, the image in question simply shows things, as they are. It is not there to wiktionary:arouse people. It does not show a sexual act. it is simply there to illustrate. --Eptalon 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to avoid another mega debate on this subject, so I propose the same solution that enWP came up with: use line drawings if possible, but any image is better than no image. PullToOpen^Talk 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I compeltely agree with Eptalon and PullToOpen. While it might be possible that someone could find it arousing, that is not the purpose of including the illustration - rather, it seems to have some redeeming value as legitimate information about natural human anatomy, as a necessary part of the field of medicine. I haven't heard any complaints about the photo, but if we ever did, I suppose we could consider a line drawing as another alternative (though it would not be as clear as the current image) Blockinblox - talk 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The images and text are appropriate IMHO. Useful, factual, and clearly not intended to tittilate for monetary gain, which is also a definition of pornography. Sue W 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Will "simple" become a shorter Wikipedia?

Hello! I just have a question, before I get more involved: will Simple English Wikipedia (SEWP) become a shorter Wikipedia? Many articles in the English Wikipedia (EWP) are pretty long, besides being complex, written in a complex language; so my question is whether SEW should produce smaller articles, as well as articles written in a simpler language... In the long run, that could be a Good Thing: EWP could turn to be something like the Britannica, while SEWP could become something like the Columbia Encyclopedia: a shorter reference, fit for younger students, students of ESL, or for quick reference... Lwyx 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You raise some very thoughtful points. I think that each wikipedia is the sum of what's put into it and is shaped by the people who edit it, so it is exciting to watch it gradually take shape, and of course it is going to be different... we borrow freely from en: but we are not their carbon copy, and eventually I envisage people may come here simply because they prefer less pompous language, but still want high quality information. Right now I think that high quality is years down the road in many places. A simple comparison in size is not enough; besides en: will probably always be the biggest 'pedia... There is no limit on how long any given article can be except by the amount of notable information that can be expressed simply. However, i've noticed that there may be a slightly higher threshhold of notability required by many editors here, at present... Blockinblox - talk 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Being simple here means using simpler words and sentences. An article can still be long.--Jusjih 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that, I've created some long articles! Totnesmartin 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of my articles are in the longest 100, but I tried to get them simple. That's what is important here :) The life of brian 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the point, but IMO articles for a simple encyclopedia should also try to be shorter, to better serve its intended users. Long articles may discourage beginning readers. --Lwyx 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found some copies of two English for beginners series (Longman's and Pyramid's) in a used books store, and now I see how feasible is to write long pieces in Simple English: somehow they managed to translate Austin's Sense and Sensibility into a 2000 word vocabulary!--- I think that answers my question... This thread may be archived, I think... Lwyx 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed

Wikipedia is now Wikipedia (closed) - by someone called user: Jinbo Wales (note the splelling). I'll revert it unless some one says otherwise.

actually I did it anyway, it's obviously just some fool playing about. I've warned him. Totnesmartin 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Template request

I'd like to request a template for mini flag icons that can be used in tables, infoboxes, etc. Here's a link to the flagicon template on the other Wikipedia: link. I'm hoping that someone who knows more about doing this can help set this up on SE Wikipedia so that our tables, etc can look as nice. Thanks in advance. Tygartl1 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Category:Flag templates? They are not perfect, but they work in many cases.-- Creol(talk) 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

add-on comment. The basic flagicon template does work, the problem will be that for it to work for a specific country, 2-4 minor templates need to be created for each country. 1 for the flag, 1 for the county name and 2 possible redirects to those files for abreiviated names (USA redirects to United States, for example). The actual files are quite small, but there will be a lot of them to create. -- Creol(talk) 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually hadn't tried Category:Flag templates because I couldn't find it simply by clicking around. In fact, I still can't. It's not a big deal since I know it exists now, but I think it's a little strange that it's in the Category:Templates but when I look in Category:Templates I certainly don't see it there as a subcategory. Maybe it's just my computer... Thanks again for the help :-) Tygartl1 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

update: I figured out why it wasn't there. I just had to move it to Category:Wikipedia templates. Tygartl1 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Simplicity level - a question and an idea

Question: I've been told that some of my articles (such as Bromeliad) might read as if written for children (which is actually true!), and a tag placed on another of mine (Eucalyptus) says it's not simple enough. What's the right level?

Idea: perhaps the introduction to each article should keep strictly to the 850 word list, but the rest can expand from that a bit more?Totnesmartin 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea and I try to keep it that way. After that I use the VOA 1700 list, or use more words. — This unsigned comment was added by The life of brian (talk • contribs) .

This is a question, perhaps to complete the question about length of the articles: I assume this 850 word list should be completed by the 150 words assumed to be "international" (numbers, days of the week, months, and a few others, like "computer", "encyclopedia", etc.) by Ogden and Richards. (The Ladder collection printed by Pyramid books in the 50's had at the lowest step books written with a 1000 word list.) If that's the case, then I suggest to encourage editors to write introductions to the articles with a wordlist of about 1000 words, perhaps with children as the target audience. Lwyx 02:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for deletion archives

Could an administrator unprotect Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 3 or somebody give a good reason for why this needs to be protected? As far as I can see, no policy page says that people without administrator rights cannot close RfD discussions if the outcome is not delete, but having this page protected prevents us from doing that. J Di 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. PullToOpen^Talk 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis

Just wanted to let any Simple admins here know that JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) has now joined Simple English Wikipedia. If you already don't know about him, I'll summarize. He is a massive sockpuppeteer at en.wiki, with over 75 confirmed/suspected sockpuppet accounts. He's a known vandal, and he has already established a bad rep and a disregard for rules here. Just wanted to let you some people know, as I am not sure if he should technically be blocked here. I don't believe there was any rule saying that he couldn't make accounts on other projects and such. Nishkid64 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Vikidia

There is a French project for children, ages 8 to 13. It's called Vikidia. It's like Wikipedia. I think it's much like Simple English Wikipedia, but in simple French. It's not exactly the same. It's written for children. I think many other people will also use it, for example people learning French, and many people who will use it for the same reasons that people will use Simple English Wikipedia. The words may be more complex than Simple English words, because children can read many words, but I think they will be simpler than the French Wikipedia.

I think it's a good idea to put a link from the Simple English Wikipedia Main Page to the French Vikipedia. I think it's an external link. I don't think it's a Wikimedia project. I'm not sure. But we can still put a link to it. --Coppertwig 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)