Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 14

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

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

Who founded this Wikipedia? Creol? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 03:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. None of the original editors are still around, except perhaps User:Angela who's "inactive". Simple English was founded before we even started using MediaWiki, before 2003. Archer7 - talk 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up Social Democratic Party of Germany and removed the cleanup tag. Cannot find the article in the cleanup or complex article lists. Can somebody check I haven't missed it.

I have also added an image Image:SPD logo.svg from commons. The image says its public domain and says it might be restricted. Is the image ok to use?  Barliner  talk  10:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up a bit more. As for the image: it is ok to use it. --rimshot^talk 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)hi[reply]

It seems I've asked this before, but, how many people visit this wiki each day ? Every time I ask it I never get a response ! LIAM !

I do not know how many users visit this wiki each day. I do not know where you would find this information. I do not really want to know. --Isis§^(talk) 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start an article about Kid Robot toys ? Or am I the only one who has ever heard of them ? LIAM !

My opinion is, no. there is only a stub on en wiki about it. No other wikis have an article on it at all. --Isis§^(talk) 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who to ask to know how many people visit wikipedia each day though and I would not suggest creating an artical about that since it is a small subject. Oysterguitarist 01:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the limited number of active editors, do you think this Wikipedia seems lonely? Panda Bear 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I sort of like the smaller community here. Not as many disputes between users, and I feel as if I can do more to help the wiki. --Isis§^(talk) 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think were a lonley wiki, we just have a smaller community which is nice because it is easier for us to work together. Oysterguitarist 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the community is definitely smaller. Generally we should try to get more people editing here. This will be a hard job. Because at the current number of editors (has been discussed before), it is very hard for this Wikipedia to grow. And no, I do not mind the limited number of editors. --Eptalon 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could talk a lot here to show you why this wiki is working better than many of the other larger wikis. We have a small community, but a bigger part of our community (compared to many other sister projects) are skilled users (who have participated here or on a different project for a long time). This itself is one of the most important factors that makes this wiki have less disputes, less diruprtions, etc. - Huji ^reply 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Huji. I never thought about that. So if there are two communities, one with 1000 users, 30% of which are skilled/experienced users, and the other with 500 users, half of which are skilled/experienced users, the smaller community should have far fewer disputes per capita, right? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all links in Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist need to point to Simple English Wiktionary pages. Almost all words in the list have Wiktionary pages. Probably in a few days all will have pages. I can use a computer program to quickly (in one edit) change all links to Wiktionary links. Tell me if that is not a good idea. See for example the link I just changed from the word "message" on that page. (under letter M, and "Next:".) --Coppertwig 22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I once decided to run a js bot to do them all, then I thought there may be cases where we would have an article with the same topic as well, so I avoided that. But having reconsidered that, I think, as long as we are treating those word as words and not encyclopedic topics, they should link to Wiktionary and not the Wikipedia itself. I'm going to do it soon for you, it'll only take a little time for me indeed :) - Huji ^reply 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about the wordlists either, until you said that, Huji. Yes, if they are in a wordlist, then we are treating them as words, and therefore should link to the SE Wiktionary, I think. Other references can link to articles here when they exist. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 05:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may have nothing to do with Simple English Wikipedia, but about this picture. I'm sure that if the logos were edited out, it could be considered public domain. Panda Bear 05:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually there's a picture of it on commons, with all logos intact. The reasoning, I guess, is that (1) the Nintendo logo is incidental to the photograph, (2) the rest is not copyrightable as it is standard industrial design, not an artistic work. The Nintendo logo itself is possibly not copyrightable either as it is in a general typeface. --rimshot^talk 09:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, only Nintendo manufactures DS, so it is like blurring out Sony on a PSP or Apple on an iPod. LIAM !

Hello, I have done a guideline, at WP:SETTLEMENT, regarding that earlier vote. --Eptalon 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. :) --Isis§^(talk) 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A double redirect was created, which I fixed. I appreciate your efforts Eptalon. - Huji ^reply 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, I've reworded that guideline a little two, preserving the content. - Huji ^reply 15:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been rather busy this week, so what better way to end then with a fun question ? So anyways:

Changing my settings, I noticed you could change colour schemes etc. called skins. I have mine set to the default. Do most people, or am I the only one ? LIAM !

When you create an account, MediaWiki (the software of this wiki) automatically sets your skin to monobook. There is no evidence to show if people use it most of the time or not, however, the majority of user JS and user CSS files are named monobook.js or monobook.css showing that their users use monobook skin. I assume the majority of Wikipedia users (in most of the languages) use monobook as their primary (or only) skin. - Huji ^reply 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep the default because it is the easiest skin to use with twinkle on en:wiki.  Barliner  talk  20:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use Cologne Blue, but I sometimes think I'm the only one. --rimshot^talk 13:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to start a new Wiki____ where do I go? For example, if I wanted to start a WikiChef, how would I ask? Where would I go? Please help. LIAM !

This question is not related to SEWP, but I don't see why I can't answer it. You can try scribblewiki. --Isis§^(talk) 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try Wikia. But maybe you should look up something like "Wiki hosting" and decide for yourself what wiki you'd like to try. I don't think we want endless amounts of "You could try this wiki!" I also suggest seeing Comparison of wiki farms. Panda Bear 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a new wiki that is one of the Wikimedia wikis (like this one), you can put a proposal at meta:Proposals for new projects. --Coppertwig 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BluWiki is also a nice one. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already a lot of articles and categories about Germany - towns, geography politics. I think a WikiProject:Germany would be useful for editors interested in German affairs or wanting translations done.

Any body else interested in the idea?  Barliner  talk  21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should go ahead, and do what you like. I do not think, that we need WikiProjects that much, given the few editors we currently are (About 30, if you wondered how many). I also think, coordination of translation is something that should span several Wikis, therefore a WikiProject may not be the best thing to have. --Eptalon 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Wikiproject may be perfectly appropriate, even if you are the only member for a while. And an associated translation section sounds great, given that one of the goals of this project is to ease translation. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like how it says "Change this page" at the top of the page. That's Simple English. But to change part of a page, it says "edit". On Simple English Wiktionary and Simple English Wikiquote, when you want to change part of a page you click "change". That's better because it's like at the top of the page. Cromwellt changed it on Wiktionary a few weeks ago, and I just changed it on Wikiquote. Now, will one of the many admins on Simple English Wikipedia please change it? It's easy. You edit the page Mediawiki:Editsection and make it say "change". If you want to find other things like that to change, you can look at the page Special:Allmessages. You can click on a red link on the left and make a new page to say something different if you want to change the words that are on all pages. --Coppertwig 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it from edit to change. Nevertheless my boxes still say edit. --Eptalon 13:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I guess I needed to reload something. --Eptalon 13:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have told you that. It takes time to load or something. After you change something like that, try looking at a page you never looked at before -- that worked for me. Or, maybe you can make your browser reload its cache. Anyway, now it says "change". Thanks! I think it's more friendly that way. --Coppertwig 17:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But mine is not about black people and white people living together peacefully in the United States. Mine is to set a pace to this Wikipedia, regarding very good articles (yes, I know, it is always me speaking about it, don't worry). So here is my dream:

• At the end of this month (August), we have at least 10 very good articles (currently at 6). We can then start to put one of them on the front page, and change it every now and then.
• We get at least 5 new very good articles per month.
• The process no longer relies on me to propose or promote the articles.
• I finally get that propose-bot up and working.

We should therefore focus our efforts on things that get us there. Discussion on how the new main page should look is important. So is finding new articles that can be made very good. And finally, getting articles ready for a vote, and voting on them is too. (For all those interested: the speech I was referring to was by en:Martin Luther King, Jr. and is at en:I Have a Dream). So, let's get to work. --Eptalon 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The process no longer relies on me to propose or promote the articles." Could someone who isn't an admin ( like me! :D ) put in a proposed very good article to be voted on, like you've just done for Little Red Riding Hood?

Gwib^-(talk)- 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if people have agreed on something or so, but in my humble opinion, the answer is yes. - Huji ^reply 17:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, and yes! The very good article proposal page is for everyone, not just for Eptalon or other admins. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not just admins should be able to do that. I see no reason why other users should not. :) --Isis§^(talk) 12:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting the comment that was ignored on MP talk. It would be very helpful to do this, like the English Wikipedia, especially the IPA ones. I suggest putting the IPA symbols, Greek, Cyrillic, Hebrew, and Arabic at the bottom of the page when one edits a page, like on the English Wikipedia, because one may have trouble when putting these letters in. I have to copy/paste them from another window displaying the IPA chart for English, or the Character Map. Notice I got an new sig? Yeaahh. ~~~~ (!!!!) 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a tablet laptop I really miss wiki [[markup]] {{symbols}}  Barliner  talk  11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, administrators are fast and efficient, but suddenly I have a lot more symbols at the top of the edit box. Can we have them underneath too.  Barliner  talk  12:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Raster graphics use pixels to make up a larger image. This does not mean the artist has to use pixels - raster programs often have tools like paintbrushes, paint buckets, and erasers to make a picture." Do you think the part that's highlighted is clear enough? Panda Bear 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs extending. Raster images use a set of bitmaps. For an image of a size 300x300, there is a grid of that size. At each position in the grid, there is the color of the dot at that position. It does of course scale much less than vector graphics which use vectors to represent the data. Raster images are used for example when printing something. Modern inkjet and laser printers have a Raster image processor that converts the (usually vector) image into a rasterized one. In the case of GDI, this is done by the printer driver in the computer. Given that information, it is totally irrelevant (and perhaps confusing) to say that the flower is a raster image, and the car is not. Currently, SVG is vector-based, PNG uses bitmaps; TIFF can use either. Postscript is better at vectors; but can convert them to rasterized on the fly. In short, that article needs a major overhaul.--Eptalon 12:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better image would be the Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 together. What do you think about that? Panda Bear 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the problem of there not being such an image. I found one of a Playstation 2, Gamecube, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Xbox and NES all together here, but they're kinda dirty.

We could always just put nice separate images of them all together?

Gwib^-(talk)- 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking myself if copy-pasting from En WP (which happens every now and then here) without correctly attributing the authors of the text on En WP, is a violation of copyright or not? In m:Help:Transwiki we see the correct way of attribution, when transwiki'ing and article. What about when the text is going to be copied? What do you think? - Huji ^reply 03:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be proper style, I think to copy over the list of authors, like in a transwiki. It is not absolutely needed if a note is given that the page is copied from EnWP. I say that because if the original EnWP article is kept, its history is kept as well. Normally, when an article is transwikied the original article is deleted. This isn't the case with copying from EnWP to SWP. I am not a GFDL expert, but shouldn't a link to the EnWP version (with time stamp) from which the article was copied suffice? The list of authors on EnWP articles is usually huge, it would be quite a task to copy the whole list. --rimshot^talk 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not a minor one, and both Huji and Rimshot have hit the nail right on the head. As an active editor at English Wikisource, I recently had the chance to read a deeper debate on this matter, which you can consult here. Rimshot makes a very valid point with his comment regarding the fact that the history of the copied article will usually remain at English Wikipedia, therefore making it available for everyone to check; yet, there is no actual guarantee that it may not eventually be removed, ie. via AfD. As you will see at the debate linked to above, the normal approach at nearly every Wiki is to reject copy-and-paste moves as copyvios. While the size of our project is still rather small, and therefore this isn't likely to be a major problem for some time, I strongly believe that this kind of copy-paste should be discouraged; and unlike the case of material that would qualify for Wiktionary, Wikiquote or Wikisource, we shouldn't be making transwiki moves here from English Wikipedia in the first place, for language issues. For the time being, and until growth of our community makes it urgent, I think the best solution is to continue to reject copy-paste moves for language complexity concerns, and only when a move of material from En.wiki is absolutely necessary, to resort to Rimshot's solution. More ideas? Regards, Phaedriel - 04:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEWT milestone!

I posted this info on one or two other pages, but I know that some people don't even know those pages exist, so I thought I'd put it here as well: On August 4, 2007, Simple English Wiktionary reached 2,000 entries! Life is good! We'd be happy to have more editors helping us over there like Rimshot and some others are doing. Oh, and don't forget SEWB and SEWQ that are in even more need of editors. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 07:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

The article List of people by name has a table of contents. Is there any way to add a toc to the special page Categories ---barliner--talk--contribs- 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Add __TOC__ to the top of the page. It will make the wiki software add a TOC (Table of Contents) there. - Huji ^reply 20:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because I am not an administrator yet :) but I can't edit Special:Categories ---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should the table of contents look like, anyway? The page is just a reaaaally long list. For a structured list, try Special:CategoryTree. --rimshot^talk 13:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it doesn't need a table of contents. The list is so long that a table of contents wouldn't help. --Isis§^(talk) 15:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, barliner. I think I've misuderstood you at the first point. Anyways, special pages cannot be edited, even with admin permissions. However, there are messages shown on special pages, which can be edited by admins. So an admin can edit the message shown on Special:Categories by editing MediaWiki:categoriespagetext. Anyways, I'm in agreement with Isis in that a TOC in this case is not that hapeful. PS:If you are concerned why MediaWiki:Categoriespagetext is empty, don't worry. A copy of the message is stored in the software, which is what we are using. MediaWiki:Categoriespagetext is used to show a message other than the copy in the software.- Huji ^reply 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everone. I was just looking for a quick way to earch caegories rather than leave articles with the "uncat" template. I think that the category tree page do that, and as I look through there I get to learn more of tge wiki. too.---barliner--talk--contribs- 21:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice

How much Ice is there left on earth. Also, what is the percentage? Thanks!

Try looking at the ice article, or the one on the English Wikipedia, or Google it... but this is not a question/answer forum :) Majorly (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category

I couldn't make my choice on where to categorize Blowing a raspberry in. We can follow the En WP style, and add a category named flatulence; but it wouldn't be that understandable to many people then. Or we can put it under something like humiliation. What do you think? - Huji ^reply 21:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onomatopoeia. I already categorised it. ionas ^talk _contribs 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. You forgot to create the Category itself, tho, so I went ahead and did it, with your kind permission ;) Love, Phaedriel - 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon! Onomatopoeia was one of the first things I considered (the En WP article is categorized to it too) but I felt it is not simple English. Couldn't we rename it to something more understandable in terms of simple English? - Huji ^reply 08:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so... we have a short entry on Onomatopoeia that is linked from the Category as main article, and which can be used as quick reference by anyone interested in browsing it. Any other name would defeat the very purpose of this Category (humiliation, as suggested, would be innacurate to describe other related terms like, "Sound symbolism" or "Wah-Wah"). Last but not least, the words for "Onomatopoeia" in a huge number of languages are remarkably similar, making it very understandable for the vast majority of foreign readers (i.e., Onomatopoesie in German; Onomatopeya in Spanish; Onomatopée in French; Onomatopea in Italian; Onomatopeja in Polish; Onomatopoesi in Swedish; or Ономатопея (Onomatopeia) in Russian). Phaedriel - 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania problem

The articles Dodoma and Dar es Salaam both say that they are the largest city in tanzania. Which one is? Also, the African capital template lists both as the capital of Tanzania. There is a problem. ionas ^talk _contribs 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything's fine. The article for Dodoma states "it's the 'third' largest city in the country", not the largest one (which is Dar es Salaam). It's also correct that both cities appear at the African capitals' template; the capital was moved to Dodoma in 1996, but many government offices effectively continue to be located and function at Dar es Salaam, making it de facto a second capital city. Hope this helps! :) Phaedriel - 04:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Phaedriel. I have learned that you are one of the few non-abusive admins on EN WP — it is sad, but they're getting fewer and fewer people like you there, sice JzG left. ionas ^talk _contribs 06:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unlike you Ionas, in Simple English Wikipedia, I found the majority (if not all) of the active admins non-abusive. - Huji ^reply 08:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this have to do with responsbility? - For how much longer woud I be an admin if I was clearly abusive?- How long till there is the first vandalizing admin? ;) --Eptalon 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the point, Eptalon. Specially in a small community like Simple English Wikipedia, that every move every one does is observed by others, administrators work the best, with least mistakes. - Huji ^reply 15:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exampleuser

I created an account that anyone can use at User:Example. The rules are there. The password is "hellojack15". ionas ^talk _contribs 23:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something is definitely a-miss. I tried the password again, and saw that either I typed in the password wrong when I registered the account, or that someone logged in as Example and changed the password to something else so other users could not log in. Can this be fixed? Whoëver did it please tell me what the new password is and fix it or let me fix it? ionas ^talk _contribs 05:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an anonymous account that can be used by anybody to vandalize Wikipedia, especially one that has been sysopped and available for anybody to delete, protect, etc. pages with, has serious implications and should not be done. Password has been changed, and the account is now blocked. - Tangotango (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]