Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 19

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

Hello to all wikipedians! I just wanted to remind the community that we have three articles up for voting(s) at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles. But unfortunately, no one has been paying attention to the project. Currently, the 3 articles were supposed to have their votes in by Halloween, but I decided to extend the voting phase by an extra 3 days (normally the procedure requires only 7 days). I hope you can help by either supporting or opposing the nominated VGA articles by November 3, 2007. Thank you:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Community. At the moment, there are between 30 and 40 different editors that contribute steadily. They contribute many articles, and help improve many. The problem with this is that most of these editors come from a European background. They are either from Europe, or their set of values are very influenced by those of Europeans. So that this project can grow, it needs more of these editors (high-volume, regular contributors).

In a short talk with Werdan7, we found out there is a way in Wikipedia to send a short (3 sentences or less) message to all users coming from a certain region of the world. So far this has been used to advertise local Wikipedia meetings. The idea would be to have a short "ad" run for a short period of time (like 2 weeks). This would be done in a specific Region only (so far, Africa, "Middle East", and "Russia" have been proposed). However we felt that such a decision would be too big to take for just two people. Therefore, please express your opinions about the idea. Thanks. --Eptalon 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this idea. It is true most users are European, and it is unfair to many American users. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 13:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA! USA! USA! Lol, just kidding:) Anyhow I also agree with the idea. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me a bit more about how this actually works? It sounds like a good idea at first glance, but I'd like to find out a bit more. Archer7 - talk 12:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too. How does it work? ...Aurora... 04:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it geolocates your IP, and if you are inside the right area you see the message. Since it bases the location off of your IP, the area that sees it won't be exact, but that shouldn't be a problem.--Werdan7^{T @} 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the message displayed? In the top bar where the fundraiser message is now? Archer7 - talk 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am meta:user:Walter of Wikizine, the newsletter. When making Wikizine I try to make sure it does not contain difficult words and to use no contractions. The most readers will be native English I think but the intended target audience is multilingual. If there is anybody interested I would welcome someone from the Simple Wikipedia on the Wikizine staff for corrections as specialist for easy to read language. Greetings, --Walter 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought one might be eager to help with categorization of the articles which are not categorized yet. Cheers, - Huji ^reply 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All done with the exception of the one I have already done several times already. (categories were added, changed a few times, deleted, reverted, reverted again, I said screw it and marked it uncat)-- Creol(talk) 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Creol, do you mean Warcraft? Because I've been wondering what to do with that article since going through Category:Cleanup needed yesterday. There is World of Warcraft already, do we need Warcraft? I'm thinking we can merge them and redirect warcraft to World of warcraft, or vice versa, or just delete warcraft then recreate as a redirect to World of Warcraft. But I don't think we need both. --Isis§^(talk)

  Yes, I was referring to Warcraft. The article itself is definitely notable as the game and series has a long history. Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, Warcraft2: Tides of Darkness, and Warcraft3: Reign of Terror (and several expansions/version for 2 and 3) are distinctly different than World of Warcraft. They are set in the same world and most people automatically think World of Warcraft when they hear the term Warcraft due to its current popularity, but the subjects are distinctly different (real time simulation vs MMORPG). Moving Warcraft to Warcraft (series) and using the main warcraft as a disamb page may be appropriate, but a complete redirect is probably not a good idea. -- Creol(talk) 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I really don't know very much about it at all - not my area of expertise. Well, no matter what, that article needs some cleaning up, at the very least. I would've done that yesterday, but unexpected situations arise. --Isis§^(talk) 17:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the template reads "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free content hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The description on its description page there and licensing information is visible below."

What's a repository? I am not even sure if some people even know what "licensing" means! 68.101.123.219 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed repository to collection (and linked to collect on simp:wikt) and linked licencing to copyrights. -- Creol(talk) 06:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below. Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.

Hello, I am somewhat new to Simple Wikipedia. Is there somewhere where is a listing of all the categories is kept? Freunde 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the category tree is constantly evolving, it is unlikely to create an actual listing of all categories. That being said, [1] lists all categories nearly up-to-date (may have a few minutes lag with category creations), this list hold the complete category tree spread out. The complete list (the second one) is the closest to a written out list, but it is based on a database dump and may be a month or two old. While there is not likely any major changes to the list since then (mainly new subcategories added as new articles allow), the list is not completely accurate but does give a strong idea on what general direction to look for a specific category.-- Creol(talk) 06:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently an article about George Hotz was created. I deleted it because it wasn't really an encyclopedia article, but if it had been an acceptable article on him, I wondered if he would be notable enough. --Isis§^(talk) 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be he is. Afterall, he was the first one to perform a notable action about iPhones, which perhaps affected the future of iPhone to some extent. - Huji ^reply 03:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there is really a rule about any order in which categories are placed in but I think categories should be placed in order from most specific to most general. For Example:

[STUB (if neccessary)] ---> [Most specific] ---> [More Specific] ---> [More General] ---> [Most General]

King Tut is a perfect example.

p.s. Can category:stub go at the end?

LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 14:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stub can go to the end, if you place the {{stub}} tag after the [[Category lines of code - Huji ^reply 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For school ips, should there be a notice on the ip's talk page? Like I've done here and here? Or should I leave them alone? --Isis§^(talk) 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is good to add a notice when we see an school IP is being abused. Such notices are not regularly updated if they are added in a bulk, which can cause confusion in future. It is also a good idea to share our knowledge about how to make sure an IP belongs to a school. - Huji ^reply 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of it, I think Template:ISP might work best. I also agree with Huji that they should only be added once an IP is being repeatedly abused. Archer7 - talk 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also have {{SchoolIP}} for this purpose. -- Creol(talk) 23:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello agian. I would like to inform you that my statistics page is updated to include September and October reports. As always, feel free to ask for other statistics. - Huji ^reply 09:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, I had no idea I was so active throughout October. No wonder I am insane now. Just kidding:) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 03:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

1. We are experiencing a higher level of vandalism these days, in particular from IP editors.
2. Very Good Articles (VGA) are linked from the main page on a weekly basis, which causes them to be more prone to getting vandalised, perhaps.
3. VGAs are indeed our best articles and we should take care of them.

Having the above, I propose semi-protection of all VGAs. Please comment. - Huji ^reply 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with semi-protection. As SEWP grows vandalism can become harder to revert quickly. We should protect the articles we are holding up as examples of the best of SEWP -- Barliner  talk  14:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since SEWP continues to grow there are more people to revert vandalism, I don't think it becomes harder. Oysterguitarist 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. I actually was going to propose this soon myself but you beat me to it! :-) · Tygrrr^·talk· 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While i do not think it is necessary right at the moment, semi-protecing VGA's is a good idea. Everyone can talk about changes on the talk page. Regular named contributors can edit the respecive article. --Eptalon 15:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree with that. Archer7 - talk 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the idea of semi-protecting VGAs since wikipedia should be free to be edited by anyone, as what Jimbo Wales said. But if vandalism gets out of hand, then you could semi-protect the VGA articles only when it is being displayed on the Main Page. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snake311, I do not feel that VGA's should be protected, I think wikipedia should be free to edit, but if the vandalism gets out of hand then it should be protected. Oysterguitarist 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the other VGAs are just as prone to vandalism as the one being shown on the home page. To access the full article of the VGA on the Main Page, the vandal should click the more... link, and to access the other VGAs, the vandal should click the Other very good articles link.

Also, limiting protection to the VGA that is on home page, makes maintenance harder. An admin should take care of each article when it is being shown on the home page, and unprotect it after the duration is due.

That said, I'm still fine with the idea of limiting the protection to the VGA that is being advertised on the Main Page. So if nobody changes their opinion here, I'm gonna add this to the relevant guidelines/policies. - Huji ^reply 15:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Huji, first of all, you've said that the increased number of vandalism has mainly come from anon IP users, rather than registered users. IP users cannot edit protected or semi-protected pages. Secondly, If there might be a chance of an IP vandal clicking the Other very good articles link, then remove it so it would easily solve the problem. Good idea huh? Hmmm?? No seriously I mean it. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose an IP created a VGA or contributed alot to make an article a VGA, once it is promoted to VGA status the IP who created the article does not get to edit anymore or has to get an account? Oysterguitarist 05:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. I actually think VGAs should be protected less than regular articles. These articles are linked from the main page, which means that these will be the first articles many people see. If a user tries to edit, and it is protected, that sends the wrong message. Pages should not be prevented because they might get vandalized. This is a wiki, the same thing is true for every page. VGAs should be protected for the same reasons as any other pages, maybe even less often.--Werdan7^{T @} 06:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree protecting the VGAs in any shape or form, even if its in the front page. Wikipedia is supposed to be free for editors to edit the articles, protecting the main article in the front page discourages IP editors from doing so. VGAs should be more free for any editors to improve the article. Also, English Wikipedia, a much more vandalism prone website than Simple English, unprotects Featured articles that appear on the main page, solely for the purpose of allowing all editors to contribute positively to the article. RaNdOm26 08:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm convinced; I changed my mind and think we should not semi-protect our VGAs, at least in our current situation. - Huji ^reply 16:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that when creating a new article on the Simple English wikipedia, copy and paste the normal English wikipedia article and then simplify the words and sentences. I see that a lot of the articles on the Simple English wiki turn complex ideas into simple ideas. Much of the more detailed information is destroyed. Simple English wikipedias are usually a lot more vague than the normal English wikipedia.

So, if we just copy the normal English wikipedia and then simplify the words, grammar, and sentences, it will still explain a complex idea, just using simple English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.144 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For licensing reasons, it is not a good idea to copy and paste from English Wikipeia. Aside from that, as you noticed, Simple English Wikipedia doesn't simply provide the same information with simpler words; it also simplifies the content too. This helps some younger age users (even those who are native English speakers) to benefit from the articles.

Nevertheless, if you think an important issue is not addressed in an article, you can read the relevant parts in the English Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) and then rewrite them in your own words using simpler words and conecpts. Best, - Huji ^reply 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note however, that this wikipedia is not specially made for younger people. It presents the facts as they are, it does does not leave out information, called Censorship. --Eptalon 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to another obvious question: if Simple is not (necessarily) made for younger people, and you want to keep all the nuances of the "other" English WP, ain't it easier to simplify the "other English" Wikipedia rather than building a mirror, no matter how much "simpler".--- I think this whole effort is questionable, unless the "simple" wikipedia becomes a "concise" one (for wireless access, for instance). Lwyx 21:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all; I have recently worked on articles relating to Witches and Witchcraft. To be able to label those that were ether accused of being a witch, or executed because they were one, I have created Category:Witches. Once there are more articles about such people though, I think we should make the distinction, between:

• Accused of being a witch
• Executed as a Witch
• Executed as a Witch, but later found not guilty.

Again, this only becomes an option if we have at least 3 people for each of the categories. At the moment, I am therefore looking for people to fit Executed as a witch, but later found not guilty (except Anna Göldi), and for Accused of being a witch (but not found guilty) except Maria Holl. I am also not quite sure what to do with Christine Teipel, a 9 year old, executed for being witch. That case reads to me more like the church trying to protect sexual abuse of a child, than anything. But those were the Middle Ages, oh well... --Eptalon 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran HujiBot again today, and Category:Category needed is again full of pages which need your attention. - Huji ^reply 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, someday I would like to be a simple admin. When is a good time (I've been here since October 9th), how many edits should I have, and anything else? Thanks, just wondering. JetLover ^Bam! 04:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually users have been active for at least three months and have over 1000 edits, however, each user is considered individually. You may want to read this and this if you haven't already. And, most importantly, this. --Isis§^(talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the CfA (Criteria for Administratorship), the earliest date you could get adminship is on December 9, although it should be noted that on rare cases it could happen earlier than 3 months, such as M7 and Majorly. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand this rule, a user can contact someone through their user talk page or use an unblock template. JetLover ^Bam! 03:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think several admins have a life beside Wikipedia. They are not always here. So if something important comes up (think about large-scale vandalism), people need to be contactable. Another thing is that sometimes information needs to be exchanged that is not suitable for being posted here (As an example: Data related to CheckUser). Given there are enough places that give out free email accounts, I do not really see this as a problem. Cheers. --Eptalon 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple english wikipedia now has over 20k articles and has been featured as on the bottom of en wiki's home page as a wiki with over 20k articles. As of now, we have already launched a very good article process has we have 26 VGA articles. But as this wiki continues to grow has we have been getting more users joining from time to time, our articles should be classified on an assessment scale as en wiki does to their articles. I've proposed my version of the assessment scale, which is based from the en wiki counterpart.

• Very good articles - Considered as one of the best articles of this wiki.
• A-class articles - Very decently written article with useful info to the reader, but may miss a few relevant points.
• B-class articles - Generally a useful article to most viewers (or readers), but needs considerable work would be required such as filling in some important gaps.
• Stub aticles - A short article with only small amounts of information, or with incomprehensible content needing major reviewing and editing.

If other editors agree with this proposal of the assessment scale, I'll be willing to create Wikipedia:Assessment scale. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea, but it may take more work than it is worth. I am unsure of when the assessment scale was started on En.WP, however, I think it was started a good bit after 20000 articles. That is to say, I do not think an assessment scale is needed at this time. --Isis§^(talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be better to classify the articles before it looks impossible to classify all article in the future, when the number looks overwhelming. Not to mention like more than 40% of the articles here that range into the stub classification. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also en wiki began its own assessment scale on Nov. '05 when they were between 500k to 800k articles. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say O.K. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 06:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Isis here. I think what you proposed is okay, but it is not the time to apply it on our wiki. - Huji ^reply 10:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this process is agreed upon, many users will be left confused. Not the right time. We'd have to make a template to tell users that this scale is in place. Though, it seems like a good idea. Maybe after 35.000. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that classifying articles into different categories, based on how complete or well-written the article is is a good idea. There are however some problems, that I can see with it:

• Ideally, we want exclusive categories. That means that each article is in one category only. On the other hand, we want the categories so that every article is in one category.
• An average user needs to be able to see why a certain article is in a certain category and not in another one.
• At the moment, our focus should be to get more (regular, high-volume) editors. Then there will also be more editors to apply these classifications (or a different scheme, agreed upon)

SO in short: yes, it is a good idea, but don't do it now. Our project is not big enough for it yet. --Eptalon 13:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, however I think the Simple English Wikipedia is just not big enough for it now. — Lights (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess then I'll put to proposal on hold, if that is what you want. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have just reached Twenty-One Thousand articles on this Wikipedia. The 21,000th article was Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. I am creating Wikipedia:Article Milestones, to document our article milestones. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 02:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that is what this is for. --Isis§^(talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among other things. ...Aurora... 03:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a problem with all the Harry Potter articles and I don't know what to do. I've tried reverting it but I can't get it back far enough and all the other articles have the same problem. There are too many that are linked to it and have been changed. Earlier in the summer I found that these articles were nicely written and had plenty of information, I copied all of ones possible into a word document. I noticed a change after the new book came out though, people edited more and more. Normally it was small things I didn't return until recently. I see that people have gone so far as to put their art onto it instead of actual canon photos. That was bad enough but now I've found someone has taken all the information off and replaced it with some very rude sayings like; "HP is bitchen," or even as far as "Dumbldores Gay!" As I mentioned before I reverted it but there are so many other related links that have been changed to this that even an A+ seventh grader can't change them all! In any case I would like to get back to what I was starting at, the removal of information you know is true. These pages are now much shorter. When I was looking for the right page to revert to I found one with a comment at the bottom saying that it had no information, that it could be short and sweet but needs to tell you something. I found this very true, what I have read on these pages is very little information because someone wiped it clean but what is left is very choppy writing and seems to be written by a two-year-old. I would just like help in repairing wikipedia, which I used to find very informative until what I assume is the same person is changing so many articles and making Wikipedia a very unpleasant website. All I ask is for Help, because I'm just a seventh grader I don't know what to do! I can repair the Harry Potter articles but I can't do them all, please help me in reverting all the pages that have been turned into very un-humorous jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.12.175 (talk • contribs)

Hello, first of all, please sign your messages on talk pages; secondly, please create an account, people with named accounts tend to have more weight here. I have checked out two Harry potter related articles, and for both of them I have the history back to their creation, somewhere last half of 2005. I cannot say if what is written about the books is correct, I have not read them. I have also looked at who edited them (...bot are bots, they usually only add/change interwikis), the ones I looked at were edited by User:Creol. Creol is another Administrator here, he is trusted by the community. SimpleWikipedia is free, and open for changes. As long as the language is kept simple, anyone can change (almost) any article here. --Eptalon 08:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the first, second and seventh had a lot of information removed from them due to an editor removing their contributions because of problems with other editors. Much of this information has now been re-added, but is in need of general cleanup, simplification, and wikifying. It also needs to be looked at for matters of NPOV and original research. While much of it may need to be removed because of this, there is much that should be able to be kept. -- Creol(talk) 10:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm...I remember a mass removal of information. However, I really don't remember what it was for (NPOV tag in the article on Harry Potter?), even though I may have been involved in some way. I would have redone the articles, but I have not read any the books yet. Many book-related articles, here and on the english wiki, are in need of major wikify-ing, plot tune-ups, and just general massive cleanup. And in my experience, most of the edits I do have been undone (Check history of Uglies on the english wiki for major reverts, and see what I mean.) Unfortunately, my help to anything Harry-Potter related would be removing vandalism. That is, random sentences like "Dumbldores gay" and "HP is a bitchen" where they don't belong.--Isis§^(talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbledore is gay, as JK Rolling says, but the rest are no doubt vandalism! - Huji ^reply 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise: Rowling said she always thought he was gay. That does not say that he is gay in the book. The latter is to be decided by the reader. (As you see I am Rowling fan because she leaves enough to be decided by the reader.) --Cethegus 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article with {{stub}} tag on it is categorized to Category:Stubs. Apparently, we have (and have had) no plan in using this category. Also, as long as there is only one stub template, articles marked by it can be just as easily found using Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Stubs as they can be found using such a category.

On the other hand, there is a disadvantage of {{stub}} being a categorizing template: Many new articles are marked as stub before being added to any subjective category. This causes them not to appear in the list of uncategorized pages. Although there are ways to find them (I regularly find and list them using HujiBot), I think this is pointless.

So, I propose changing {{stub}} tempalte, so it would no longer add articles to any category. Later, when we really had plans about managing stubs (which of course needs a higher level of contribution and a bigger number of contributors) we can readd the category code again.

What do you think? - Huji ^reply 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just change this when I left? Which was like...late August? I've found the "stub" category to be rather useless, because I've always used the the what links here. And considering how most of the articles here are stubs, that category is probably one of the largest, therefore making it hard to find specific articles anyway? I would have no problems with it being removed, if no one else wants it. --Isis§^(talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this, this way it will make more use of the uncategorized page and when that is not updated you can use the what links here. Oysterguitarist 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in a way, {{stub}} should behave like {{uncat}}, giving category needed, but only if no other category is present. Leaving out the category stubs is probably the fastest thing to do. The other approach would be to try to broadly classify stubs; but again that would need some planning. --Eptalon 09:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, we've gone full circle now, haven't we? ...Aurora...

Okay, as there was no serious objections, I'm performing the change I described above. - Huji ^reply 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The learning english talk page has had an occassional discussion about merging these articles since July. I want to bring the discussion to everyone's notice, otherwise the merge templates could be removed. -- Barliner  talk  12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. At first it might appear that merging the two would be a good idea. On a second look though, they are fundamentally different. English language is about the English language, how it developed, and where it is spoken today. Learning English is about the different ways to learn English. Learning English is something we have at Simple, it does not exist in this form in other Wikipedias. SO if the was a merge done, it should probably be to English language learning and teaching and not English language. --Eptalon 11:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am against the merge because the articles are so different. But the discussion has been minimal. If there is anyone out there who thinks differently please speak up or I will remove the templates to tidy the articles up -- Barliner  talk  20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! ---I'm interested in contributing to a "concise wikipedia" project here in simple english. I think a possible way to do it is by writing a javascript skin, stripping all templates and sections, save crossreferences ("see also", "external links"). This would make it possible to offer short, simple, useful articles on mobile devices, which usually charge by kb, or in plain browsers, if somebody wants a short desk reference instead of a full size encyclopedia.--- If someone else is interested and/or knows how to program in js, please leave a message in my talk page.--- Regards, Lwyx 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's something called Minipedia. You might want to have a look at that first. ...Aurora... 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aurora; but I think that's slightly more restricted. Basically it looks like a stub task force, to add short stubs that may be expanded; I'm proposing a way to shorten articles that may be long, like an automatic way to make stubs from full fledged articles. Thanks anyway. Lwyx 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a few templates to add userboxes in userpages. The basic ones are for languages we speak, and our areas of interest. If no objection is raised, I'll add a babel template in a couple of days. Lwyx 03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have babel userboxes for most languages so far. See WP:BABEL. Also, other templates other than babel are not alloweed to be posted up on this wiki (according to Netoholic), but many users still put up other userboxes alongside with their babel userboxes on their userpage. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am Roman5, and I am new to wiki. I'm proud to help simple english to make it a very good reliable source. I have some good editing skills to improve either grammer or other things. I'm working on the nintendo Mario pages along with the other Mario characters. I figure it doesn't hurt to ask for some help right? I was trying to upload some pictures in Mario's section. But to tell you one thing, wiki doesn't want us to upload any pictures. That's kinda getting on me right now, and I think it would be great if I can get some pictures to show example or something like that. Not only that, but there's tons of games that don't have pages, and I hope someone can help me if they are interested in filling info in games. Sorry if I said this in the wrong topic, but it said if you have questions about wiki, and I thought it was a place to get someone with you or something. Thanks, I'll be waiting. — This unsigned comment was added by Roman5 (talk • changes) on 4 December 2007.

SEWP only takes images from commons.wikipedia. Search there to see if any images have already been uploaded. Probably not, because of copyright issues. -- Barliner  talk  22:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I upload a picture, will it be in the section? Another thing is that how can you arrange the picture to be in the place you want it? Such as moving a picture to the right, and then there's alittle infomation below it. — This unsigned comment was added by roman5 (talk • changes) on 4 December 2007.

If you upload a picture at the Commons, you can use it here. To put the picture to right, use [[Image:IMAGE NAME|thumb|right|DESCRIPTION OF IMAGE]]. If you want the picture to be at the left or the middle, use left or center instead of right. — Lights (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope I can remember that. How long do questions last?

And another thing, how do you add those box infomation, like it's always under the picture.— This unsigned comment was added by Roman5 (talk • changes) on 4 December 2007.

See Help:How to use images for information on how to use the image tag. -- Creol(talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an example of uploading your picture to the common wiki? When I head to the main page,(I think) there's no button to upload or something. It also looked like another wiki section where my account wasn't created in. How would I move that to another section? I'm so confused, so sorry if I anger anyone here. You can just start with the first step, then to the last.Roman5 23:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page at commons, there is a link on the left hand side of the page (in the "Participate" block) that says "Upload File". It will take you to a page with help on uploading. You should also check out the Commons FAQ before uploading.-- Creol(talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on improving pages on current United States politicians running for President. Can we create a "United States 2008 Presidential Candidates" category? I don't understand how to create one.

Also, I am new to the Simple English site. Should I use Simple English even on talk pages, edit summaries, and here? Thanks! Fogster 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates category would probably need to be in Category:United States politicians. As to Simple English, it is easier to use it. That way, you are easier to understand. --Eptalon 22:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Category:United States presidential candidates, 2008 has been created and most (if not all) existing articles for candidates have been added to the category. -- Creol(talk) 02:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t undrstand what`s the diffrent betwin this wiki and en.wiki?! anyone xplain it to me in my talk page plz. thanks a lot.--Gordafarid 01:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On simple, we use Simple English. It is for young children or those learning english. JetLover ^Bam! 01:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, community. I see myself talking more and more about the same thing. We have very good articles; and fortunately enough, the system seems to be running without too much work from my part (Real life is keeping me busy at the moment). However, we seem to have very good articles with red links in them, for example Muhammad, and Mali. Looking at the guideline, I find things like There must be no red links left (requirements, 6); and When the article meets all the criteria, except the agreement of three editors, it can be voted on. (How to make an article very good, 3); the question I have now, is what should we do about this? - Should we permit for our Very best articles to not meet all the criteria (we had so long in staking out), but only say, 7 of the 10? - If so, which 7? - Do we need another category of articles, which are almost very good? - Do we need to recheck the (currently 32) VGAs for the criteria? Just thoughts.. --Eptalon 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep to the 10 criteria (Muhammad is ok now for that), but when we have manpower enough we should start with a second level ("good article"). It looks as if this stage is not far. --Cethegus 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria are there to help us, not to restrict us. For example, if an article becomes a VGA, and a few days later, some of the articles linked by it are deleted for any reason (hence some redlinks in it) does it mean it will no more qualify as VGA? I think the answer is negative.

In this sense, I think we should stick to the criteria as much as possible, generally, but use them as a "guideline", not a strict rule. They should help us (guide us, hence the name guideline) in making a better decision, as they do so far.

As a side note, I miss your comments on WP:PVGOOD. It'd be great if you could manage some time to send some votes and comments there, Eptalon. Cheers, - Huji ^reply 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly agree with Huji here. But in Wikipedia:Very good articles, the opening statement says that in case a current VGA article no longer meets the criteria, they can demote the article after reviewing it at Wikipedia:Peer review, but still give it a chance to be re-promoted (just as they do in en wiki). Also, I tried creating a "good articles" category but a lack of interest and support made me to cancel that project. Also, I sought several times before to create an article assessment scale but again, there was little or no approval to it. Currently, most users here have been paying little attention to the VGAs in wikipedia although progress is slowly being made now, so without the attention of all of the editors here in this wiki, no one may even care to improve, review, or create new VGAs. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring people's attention to a discussion that has just started on the talk page for proposed VG articles: here. It is related to the quality of our VG articles and my own prosposal regarding what to do with Good and Very Good articles. Please comment. · Tygrrr... 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, it may be time perhaps for a new category (good articles). I think for getting criteria, we can look at our current proposed very good article process, and the articles there. In that way, a good article is on its way of becoming a VGA; I would propose to create them, based on the guide for VGAs. A good article must meet the following criteria from the guidleine

• It belongs in this Wikipedia (Guideline 1)
• It is at least half a screen (2.5k) long (modified, 2)
• It has at least one category set (4)
• 3 people agree it meets these criteria (10) (Optional?)
• It does not need to meet the other criteria of the guideline.

In that way, all Very good articles and their proposals are good articles too; Same delays and voting rules as for VGAs should apply. We can re-use that infrastructure, if we decide we need a vote. And of course we need to discuss how to name them, and to create the appropriate templates, once we decided. What do you think, do we have the manpower/willingness for that? --Eptalon 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a guideline proposal here - Feel free to edit/discuss as you see fit. --Eptalon 18:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was just gonna start discussing about the project! Man I can't believe this! --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template to propose articles for good status? -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. If it goes like with the very good article, we will spend about 1-2 months discussing... :) --Eptalon 19:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring people's attention to a discussion that has just started on the talk page for proposed VG articles: here. It is related to the quality of our VG articles and my own prosposal regarding what to do with Good and Very Good articles. Please comment. · Tygrrr... 16:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in my opinion, the template Template:GermanPresidents should be changed:

• Germany was occupied, there was only the occupation force from 1945 to 1949
• From 1949 to 1990 there were two German states; we should therefore list the Presidents for both of them.
• After 1990, there is a single German state

For the DDR: Vorsitzende des Staatsrates (since 1960): Walter Ulbricht (from 1949, under a different name) 1960-1973; Willi Stoph 73-76; Erich Honnecker 76-89; Egon Krenz 89; Manfred Gerlach 90; (Sabine Bergmann-Pohl 90; after a constitutional change and free elections) What do you think? --Eptalon 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of wondering about the naming in general of the template to start with. The term President has never been consistently used for many German Heads of State. Hitler for instance was not a President (Leader and Chancellor) and there was only one actual President for DDR although it had six heads of state (five were Chairman of the Council of State). While all were the Head of State and the FRG solely used President as its Head of State, using President for all Heads of State is not accurate. Also, Hans Luther should be on the list even if it was for only 12 days. Simons was only there for 2 months and he gets on the list. Actually... Luther seems to be completely omitted from the line of succession here. We jump straight from Ebert to Simons and skip over Feb 28-March 12 1925 entirely. It is one thing to skip Feb 19 - Feb 29, 1700 (those days actually do not exist in Germany, Norway, and Denmark) but I am pretty certain Feb 28-March 12 1925 exists.

Renaming (or at least retitling) it Heads of State of Germany (or Leaders, though less accurate) and including the DDR seems to be needed. -- Creol(talk) 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the rule to count as heads of state all persons who were in charge during interregna like it is done here that would be rather confusing for a Simple Wikipedia. My suggestion Heads of State of Germany as Category but including only the persons who held the office as such and not those who were officially heads of state as "Stellvertreter". Then that would be for 1919-49: Ebert, Hindenburg, Hitler, Dönitz, Heuss, not counting Beerfelde who was one of three Vorsitzenden des Vollzugsrats der Arbeiter- und Soldatenräte for two days. --Cethegus 10:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 1949 to 2007 it would be: Heuss, Lübke ... Köhler, leaving out Arnold who only was head of state, because he was Bundesratspräsident and no Bundespräsident was elected yet. --Cethegus 10:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that ENWP has Ebert succeeded as President by Hindenburg, and the Weimar Presidents template adds only Simons as acting president, however I have added Chancellor Luther and Bratspräs. Arnold although the wording of the Grundgesetz makes his legitimacy questionable. They do not make the template noticeably larger. As for the DDR, I will create another template for their leaders which can be added to the end of the current template. The number (at the end) and titles make this seem the simpler option. I will create the templates in my userspace and put a link from here when I have done it, so articles are not changed by an experiment, and the discussion can include it. -- Barliner  talk  14:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template DDR leaders now exists. User:Barliner/Germany Shows the GermanPresidents and DDRleaders next to each other. TemplateGermanleaders calls both of this, while of course allowing editing on either.-- Barliner  talk  15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really happy with this solution, mainly as "leaders" transports connotations connected with Hitler, secondly as a judge acting as president is not really a simple concept and I doubt if there will be a history of Germany soon in SEWP that mentions Chancellor Luther and Bundesratspräsident Arnold. --Cethegus 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked: In the en:WP Simons and Luther are not mentioned in en:Weimar Republic at all, neither Arnold in en:History of Germany since 1945. Is there any chance that the SEWP will have more details than the en:WP soon? - Even in the de:WP Simons is not mentioned at all in de:Weimarer Republik, Luther is not mentioned in the text, only in lists of chancellors. In de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Arnold is mentioned only as elected Bundesratspräsident and possible Stellvertreter, but not mentioned that he actually had the function as head of state at any time. --Cethegus 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DDRleaders is purely a template code title, "Heads of State" is what is visible in the article, I have no problem with that. There was definitely an interregnum after Ebert's death, and I cannot see how to get round this other than by showing the names of those able to act as president It was also ENWP's article on Ebert that includes an acting successor. As for Arnold, under Article 136 of the Grundgesetz as president of the Bundesrat he acted as president under Heuss's election, and therfore should be shown if only to maintain a time line. I am more than willing to write article on all three acting presidents. As long as nobody expects them tomorrow :) -- Barliner  talk  19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO you think we need to tell the people that was from 1949 to 1990 was the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) is actually different from the BRD that has existed since the unification? --Eptalon 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 footnotes: 1957 and 1990 -- Barliner  talk  19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To help anyone who wants to use the "img=" option of {{BS}} I have brought across WP:BARN from ENWP. It provides a table of the different images available. I will simplify it further, rather than have lots of different templates when the option to change the image is available. More image options at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Barnstars. -- Barliner  talk  19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello community. At the moment there is an important discussion going on here. This discussion is basically about the following items:

1. There was a proposal to introduce a new category of Good Articles - For these we need to find out what makes an article a good one. Such a proposed guideline sketich is currently here.
2. We also need to be clear about what makes an article a Very Good one. Time has shown that the guideline on Very Good Articles perhaps needs to be clarified. This comes from the fact that there are huge differences in the quality standards applied to the current VGAs.

For this reason, I would like to freeze the VGA process for a month. This would mean:

• All current deadlines are extended by a month; perhaps what is proposed for a VGA will be a GA in a months time.
• There are no new proposals for this time.
• There are no promotions for this time.

I invite every (named) editor to take part in the discussion of how we should handle what will be our showcase articles.We can unfreeze the process (and adapt it), once we have the following:

• We have clarified the VGA criteria, and agreed that they are what we do in fact want.
• We have created another set of criteria, for Good Articles; these are based on the VGA criteria, so that every VGA is also a Good Article.
• We have reclassified the 32 VGAs we currently have, to either VGA, GA, or demoted status.

In the mean time, please take part in the discussions pointed out above. --Eptalon 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with freezing for the moment, best to sort out problems early rather than run the risk of making them worse. Archer7 - talk 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree with pausing the VGA process for a week or two, until we reach an agreement about what we're doing. - Huji ^reply 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Let's pause the process while we get this figured out. · Tygrrr... 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One small comment. To the criterion "There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another Wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary... " could be added that the subject matter is notable enough to be in Wikipedia in the first place. [One paragraph removed by author.] --Hordaland 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simply a case for Wikipedia:Requests for deletion. --Cethegus 22:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a total copy off of Wikipedia? (1) Of course, it is just a BETA. 68.43.91.73 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a hypothetical tropical cyclone story at the scratch pad wikia here. Just decided to post it up so that everyone else may see my work (not to really brag or anything).

Note: I am known as "Alastor Moody" under that wiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: I have created a page that attempts to summarize the consensus that seems to be forming on Wikipedia talk:Proposed very good articles‎. The page is at Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles/New. All named editors are encouraged to come comment on the specific wording of current criteria, as well as discuss criteria that should be added, removed, or changed. · Tygrrr... 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few days, I have been doing some major work to the category trees for computers and Plants. Computing (the main computer category) has been broken down and its original 3 main subcats have be redistributed as articles tended to just be tossed in which ever of the three an editor thought of at the moment. Plants got a lot more work done. Pretty much every plant article now has it {{Taxobox}} included. In addition to general categories (trees, fruits, vegetables, etc), each plant article is categories by their taxonomy up through the main subcat Plant taxonomy (and Seed plants for the appropriate divisions which are split between Gymnosperms and Angiosperms). The subcats are not complete as there are plenty of openings where we do not have 3 articles to make a category, but what we do have articles on is completely ordered now. Most subcats use the correct taxo-term for the grouping, but there are occasional groupings where there is a common name which is used instead to make it easier to understand what the category is about (Legumes, Nightshades, Conifers, Beans, etc). The appropriate taxo-names should also be redirected to the main article for the common name in most of these cases. -- Creol(talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Keep up the good work. - Huji ^reply 20:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please review Passions and wikify it (or QD it if it is a false claim)? - Huji ^reply 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Passion cantata, wikified, iw, stubbed, extended; B ig question: Would Richard Wagner's Parsifal classify as one? --Eptalon 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Parsifal is an opera (some would prefer to call it a music-drama instead), not a cantata. --Kyoko 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. - Huji ^reply 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently created this page, Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, which describes a brief history of sysops who have had their rights removed in the past. If anyone wants to improve, or remove it, feel free to do so (which is the reason why I postged it up here). Cheers;) --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite good, but there are some words which should, IMO, be more simple, like "an arbitration committee" or "incivility". I'm not sure whether the Simple of Simple Wiki applies to just the pages or if it applies to the entire site, but if it is for the whole site, maybe they should be simplified?

Gwib^-(talk)- 12:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page for the history of de-adminship or to request some one to be de-sysoped? Oysterguitarist 14:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"describes a brief history of sysops who have had their rights removed in the past"

Gwib^-(talk)- 14:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:De-adminship since there is no place to request someone be de-sysoped. Oysterguitarist 14:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask Snake's opinion on that first since he created it.
Gwib^-(talk)- 14:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Oysterguitarist 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply thought that, as we are on a "wiki", it gives us the rigth to move the page (afterall, the fact that a user creates a page doesn't give him or her any additional right about the page). So I moved it to Wikipedia:De-adminship. Of course, Snake and others can discuss it, and may be we make another consensus later on. :) - Huji ^reply 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Sean William resign, too? --Isis§^(talk) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah doesn't appear in this list. Oysterguitarist 19:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Sean William and Tdxiang to the resigned list. Also I have no opposition to the new title, except that I got the idea from en wiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diff) (hist) . . The Prince and the Pauper‎; 19:23 . . (-102) . . 71.116.128.248 (Talk) (Undid an earlier change by 75.181.159.248 (talk) (revision 633531))

Is it normal for an IP address to revert actual vandalism? -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? We need all the help reverting vandalism we can get, and people don't need to be logged in to do that... Blockinblox - talk 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it incredibly funny myself...-Razorflame (contributions) Talk 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't! There are times when I contribute to wikis without logging in (i.e. as an IP) and this includes reverting vandalism. I mean, that IP could be someone like me :) - Huji ^reply 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most IP's don't revert vandalism, but those who do probably are users on a different wiki other than that one. Oysterguitarist 23:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why Special:Wantedpages isn't updating any more? Archer7 - talk 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd update it but I don't know how :(

Gwib^-(talk)- 17:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now have anyone updated it --Kakico 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't think people updated it...isn't it automatically updated? It says udating is disabled, is there a way to enable it? --Isis§^(talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i think that in other wikis is like that.--Kakico 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaWiki software automatically updates it, but if it is disabled then you need a developer or someone with root access to the site's PHP to turn it on. Oysterguitarist 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been approximately one month from the last time I (re-)requested the developers with shell access, to update the cache of Special:Wantedpages. They seem to be busy enough to avoid doing that. Anyways, it is not something to be done in a second, and regenerating the list puts some load on the servers. - Huji ^reply 07:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the process of starting a Wikiproiject? I would like to start a Wikiproject for Television. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before, there were a few discussions to start a wikiproject. But this wiki is still deemed to be too small to host wikiprojects. But its best to have a third and fourth party state their opinions in too. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion during the recent discussions on WP:RFD is creating a project in a user's namespace, and if it generates enough interest and becomes big enough, then it can be moved to the common mainspace. I think that many people here are not against WikiProjects, we just would like a project to prove that people will actually work on it before we go ahead and give it a mainspace page that won't be abandoned. · Tygrrr... 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in Wikiproject Germany. Although I have deleted the material I had I will recreate it in my user space, with an index page at User:Barliner/Germany, where anyone interested can sign up and make project-specific suggestions - such as becoming "Wikiproject Germanic" or whatever to include Austria and Switzerland. Perhaps now that we have some 22000 articles and many new active editors Wikiprojects can become a viable part of the community -- Barliner  talk  15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tygrrr for bringing it to our attention. I agree with the idea too. I think we can move such projects to Wikipedia namepsace when they have five or six regular members. - Huji ^reply 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it's revision history, I would like to suggest that this page be semi-protected, or maybe even full protected. Anyone else in agreement? -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully-protected? Never, unless there's a current edit war or vandalism spree, but even then it should only be temporary. I'd go against semi-protecting it since this is a small Wikipedia and contributions, even from IPs, are desperately needed. If some of us include it in our watchlists I'm sure we can handle it. I've already done so. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk to me)} 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism to that article is not that heavy, and full protection would not be applied for vandalism(most of the time). Oysterguitarist 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several existing stub templates which redirect to the basic "stub". At least one (Template:Sci-stub) was redirected back in 2005 by Netoholic.

Rather than delete these and fix the redirect, I suggest keeping them in readiness for a plan to handle the many stubs which we have now.

Hand in hand with keeping them therefore is devising a plan to handle the stubs, even if only to divide them into subcategories so that we know the basic subject matters. -- Barliner  talk  22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to start, and actually what is it all about, I mean the simple talk.I am Rippy and was searching some thing about English Literature.I mean sometink that can help to study English Literatrue. Basically I am an art teacher I teach Art and deasign in European standard school"Dhaka Bangladesh.Recently I have desided to do Enlish literature in A level so I was looking some notes on shakespeare(Tempest). If any one can help please--My mailing-afrukhtah10@yahoo.com.I would be very greatfull.You can start english literature in this wiki. — This unsigned comment was added by Rips10 (talk • changes).

For in depth knowledge, the best place is the English Wikipedia (Wiki-En or en-wiki), which is far more complete. You may find what you're looking for in any of the following Wiki-En pages:

• w:en:English literature
• w:en:British literature
• w:en:William Shakespeare

But the Wiki-En has an advanced or professional level of English, which may be hard to understand for people who are not fluent in English. But Wikipedia has created links to other language encyclopedias within each article. In the article w:en:William Shakespeare, look at the left hand side of the page until you reach the languages box. You might find a Wikipedia in your native language, which will help you understand better. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk to me)} 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: The Tempest, en:The Tempest and English literature --Cethegus 21:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following these comments I have created Category:English literature which is a child of Category:Literature by language and Category:English language. We should perhaps also root the Shakespeare's plays cat in English literature... --Eptalon 15:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]