Wikipedia:Simple talk

Simple talk
	This is the place to ask any questions you have about the Simple English Wikipedia. Any general discussions or anything of community interest is also appropriate here. You might also find an answer on Wikipedia:Useful, a listing of helpful pages. You may reply to any section below by clicking the "change this page" link, or add a new discussion section to this page. Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Please note that old discussions on this page are archived periodically. If you do not find a discussion here, please look in the archives. Note that you should not change the archives, so if something that has been archived needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page. Some of the language used on this page can be complicated. This is because it is used by editors to talk to one another, so sometimes we forget. Please leave us a note if you are finding what we are saying too hard to read.
Are you in the right place? See WP:AN to speak to an administrator. See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests. See WP:OS for oversight. See WP:RFRB to request the rollback feature (which administrators can grant). See WP:VIP to report vandalism. Add this page to your list of watched pages —    change

Re-working the (V)GA process...

Hello there, I am starting the discussion that may lead to a change in the (V)GA process. I am doing this here, because of the following:

• GA and VGA requirements are almost the same (except: VGA needs one more vote, and a higher percentage of support)
• Most of the thing seen as bad in the VGA process would probably also apply to the GA process.

Currently the system is up and running, but it has the following perceived weaknesses:

• Some articles are listed as either GA or VGA candidates obviously do not meet the criteria for inclusion (At the time of listing, the article must meet at least half of the respective criteria)
• There has been discussion over the system of first listing for "improvement", for a certain time, and then listing for "vote" for another time.
• There is a minimal quorum of votes (5 for GA, 6 for VGA) that an article needs to get to be awarded the new status. This leads to situations where an article with 5 votes (all in support) is rejected, and one of 6 votes (5 support, 1 oppose) is accepted. In addition, there is a support percentage; so a 6 vote article would fail if it did not get the required percentage of support.
• Currently the criteria have the status of a "guideline". In theory this means that an article that does not meet them can still be awarded the flag.
• Each GA/VGA candidate is listed/edited only by a few editors. Getting an article to GA or VGA is a lot of work. Very often though this is seen as a "prestige project" ( I got three articles to VGA, you didn't). When the system was devised it was though that improving articles to meet the criteria should be a community project.
• Seen many times: Article is listed as VGA, then fails, then re-listed as GA. Also seen many times, articles is re-listed in the same category, shortly after failing to achieve that flag.
• We should increase the output; ideally I want to see two articles of each category promoted per month.

I have only listed the "shortfalls" that I can see. I also see a number of solutions:

• When an article is listed by one editor, another editor has to check and certify it meets the criteria for inclusion. If this is not done within say a week from listing, the article would be removed again.
• Articles that failed cannot be re-listed in the same category for a certain time.

Other things to consider:

• VGA and GA criteria should be such that each VGA is also a GA. this means listing a VGA as a proposed GA is pointless.

Did I forget anything?--Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Should an article be a GA before it can be proposed as a VGA? This would encourage people to keep improving GA articles --Peterdownunder (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria were done as an easier to meet VGA criteria; at the time this was done, it was believed that it should be possible (but harder) to directly list for VGA (without going to GA first). That said, making a GA into a VGA is easier than directly making an article into a VGA. --Eptalon (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don´t think an article needs to be a GA before a VGA. The parallel is en.wiki where a Featured Article has no requirement to be a Good Article first. It´s done that way over there primarily so that articles which can´t meet the FA criteria (e.g. lack of image) can still be given some credit. We should not impose GA before VGA here for precisely the same resason. Oh, and Eptalon, I think you pretty much covered most of the pertinent points.... Let´s hope the community can spend some time thinking about how best to improve the systems and hence the Wikipedia... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, there seems to be an inherent problem on this Wikipedia with determining consensus. It seems that just because it´s Simple English, the only way we can "decide" on anything is by imposing clearcut percentage and minimum voting thresholds. This approach alone gives rise to a number of the problems Eptalon has identified above. Could we consider a more "consensus based" approach to these things? I agree that articles should not be listed if nothing is done to improve them during their "improvement period" but I´m not even sure this "improvement period" works at all. Just look at Leathermouth which I just closed due to SNOW. Nothing was done to address any of the issues raised yet it went to voting and effectively wasted four editor´s time reviewing and voting. In general we need to be more bold here and allow editors to take the Wikipedia by the scruff of the neck.

I would definitely like to see the introduction of an article improvement drive, we could select one article per week rather than continually creating millions of river and asteroid stubs (no offence Razorflame), and improve it to GA and then perhaps VGA. Just a few opening thoughts. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. I just do the work that I am most comfortable in doing. I am not very comfortable making articles into Good Articles or Very Good Articles, and I definitely agree with an article improvement drive. Cheers, Razorflame 14:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The minimal number of votes was introduced because many articles, such as Homer Simpson were being promoted to VGA based on a (usually 100%) consensus of 3 or 4 votes, look at like the first 2 archives on the PVGA page to see examples how this worked. In my opinion, an article deserving it should be "promotable" to the respective status by any user, we should not burden the "admin team" to determine consensus (as I pointed out before, 3-4 votes, 100% consensus, makes a (Very) Good Article?) - If we do not replace the current system which both imposes a minimum number of votes and a "support percentage", we will always have the problem that an article that either falls short of the minimum number of votes (even by one), or by the support percentage cannot be promoted. If we replace the system, we need to make sure that there is "enough support in the community" for an article to be promoted; to decide this based on 3 or 4 people who voiced their opinion can be dangerous. I do admit that even with the minimal quorum there is a chance you get the required number of votes by rallying, but as this number increases, it becomes more difficult. If my "guesstimates" are correct, 5 votes is about 1/6 of the active editors here. One of the solutions proposed would be to have "(V)GA coordinators", these people would do the following:

• Determine that an article does in fact meet the requirements to be listed
• Determine the time at which to move from "improvement" to "voting"
• Based on a set of criteria, determine whether the article should be awarded the flag, after the vote; if necessary make the changes in the article, and archive the discussion/vote
• For VGAs: See that the VGA stub gets created, and an article number be assigned (for rotation)

Ideally we would need 3-4 people to do this (they could do both GAs and VGAs, and might likely also be involved in the demotion process). To keep some level of objectivity, they should not promote/demote/decide on articles which they either nominated themselves, or significantly contributed to.

To all others: don't be afraid to voice your opinion. Only if we get the input of the community can we decide on a system that works for the community. --Eptalon (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good so far! I'll add my own views later when I get round to it, but as it is I would support the changes. I'd be happy to be on some form of committee as well - particularly with the VGA updating as I helped with the new system :) Cheers, Goblin 10:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

en.wiki´s featured article and featured list process have co-ordinators and generally work on a consensus basis for promotion. It works there okay so why not here? The concept of a committee to assess suitability based on careful analysis of the article in question along with an assessment of the community´s opinions sounds like a very good idea. The committee would not simply vote count as we have it today... Right now, for example, Chopstick has one support and one oppose. I have provided, in the oppose, a plethora of issues that need to be fixed within the article. The supporter cites "moral support" - I´m pretty sure the article will gain insufficient support to be promoted but, according to the current rules, the vote is 1-1 right now... The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to agree with Eptalon's proposal of adding coordinators whose job it is to look at nominated articles to see if they meet the current criteria for each and determine if the vote has enough consensus to become a VGA or GA. Cheers, Razorflame 19:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the P(V)GA process

I will be proactive again, following my comments above, I think we need:

• A committee (of 3-6 named editors), with the "functions" described above; we only need one such committee for both processes.
• Rework the P(V)GA process: The 5 or 6 votes, and the percentages required should stay. However it should be reworded in such a way as to say that these are rails for the committee. This means that if the committee comes to the conclusion that the article merits the flag, even though only 4 people voted/voiced their opinion, thats fine.
• Perhaps add a section that says that an article that failed cannot be listed in the same category, before a certain time (1 month?) or noticeable work has been done to improve/remedy the issues identified?
• Once we get the three people and have fixed the criteria, specify a date where we switch over from the current to the new process.
• If the case arises that the committee can't agree, I'd rather the article in question were not promoted. --Eptalon (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

yes Yes YES!!! I agree with it all, and i'd like to volunteer myself for the committee as I kinda do that anyway! Just one question about the committee: I assume they can nominate articles but then not !vote on them? Or can they !vote? Cheers, Goblin 12:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What I was proposing was the following: Supposing you were on the committee, you could still nominate articles; you could also vote on them; the only restriction would be: you could however not close / decide on those articles where you voted (which would not be a big problem given they would be a few committee members) --Eptalon (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie, that's what I thought. I try not to !vote anyway, even if it's one of my noms! Sign me up ;) Goblin 14:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds decent enough. I´m still not overwhelmed with the % thing, I think we ought to learn how to establish consensus here without %, but I understand that it is purely advice for the committee. As for relisting, this should be entirely up to the committee - as you have identified, if sufficient work has been done on the article then it shouldn´t matter when it´s renominated. If inadequate effort has been made to correct issues, the committee will simply withdraw the nomination. I also think the committee ought to be selected by election. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that things like % levels should be at the committee's discretion, i.e. if there is a high percentage but low quality then no promotion and vice versa. It should be listed only as a guide for the community. As for elections, I think it's a good idea and would work well. I've started a new sub-section below for that purpose, as it appears that the guidelines as suggested by Eptalon are ok with most members of the community. If we can get three people on the committee then I guess we can then go ahead and launch the new guidelines (or would it be a policy?). Also, on a separate but related note, the committee should also ensure that WP:AID is kept filled up with the latest articles, though I am looking into getting a bot to do this at some stage. Cheers, Goblin 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Committee Elections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Yes, the name sucks, please suggest a better one!)

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

I like doing behind the scenes work and clerking etc, and i've been doing this bit for a while now. I (hope) I am a good judge of consensus and I (hope) I am good at working as part of a team :) Cheers, Goblin 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Yes, BG7 really cares about making Wikipedia a better place with excellent articles.
• Yes. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, for the reasons said above. Razorflame 23:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Meh, why not. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, BG7 is dedicated to this project to the highest regard. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose, for putting consensus before verifiability. Not a good trait for the position applied for (nothing personal). PeterSymonds (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I admit that was wrong, and I have certainly learnt from that. The article and outstanding issues always come before consensus. I hope to be able to change your mind and if not, thanks for your comments :)

• Oppose I don't think were ready to elect a commitee yet. Further discussion on whether or not it is needed is required. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kennedy. I don't like the idea of a "committee" at all. I also feel that Bluegoblin7 may be dabbling in too many areas of the wiki. While this is normally to be encouraged, I am concerned that you might stretch yourself thin. Steve^Talk 10:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No committees. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I´ve had over 20 featured articles and lists on en.wiki, two featured topics there and the odd Good Article. Here I´ve created, pretty much single-handedly, five VGAs, so I believe I have the expertise required here. I may not make popular comments but I make comments so we improve this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Yes. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Good lord yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Definitely. –Juliancolton (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• One of Wikipedia's best writers and totally dedicated to the processes that make our best articles. Majorly ^talk 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, yes, yes. TRM is completely dedicated to the (V)GA processes and would be an asset to the project. He always looks to completely review any article that comes the way of the processes and is an asset to the whole SEWP project. Goblin 09:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Too contentious of a user for me to support. Razorflame 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think were ready to elect a commitee yet. Further discussion on whether or not it is needed is required. Kennedy ^(talk) 09:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose without prejuduce towards this user, I just feel we don't need a committee. Steve^Talk 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No committees. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

fr33kman (talk · contribs)

While I'm not the most experienced of GA/VGA editors, I do believe I'm a diligent, honest and neutral editor who has a fairly good understanding of policy and procedure and who can acurately determine consensus. I think that I am first and foremost a mainspace editor; believing that it is in mainspace where will live or die as a project. I also think I've a pretty good understanding of WP:RS, and WP:V fr33kman ^talk 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• Oppose I don't think were ready to elect a commitee yet. Further discussion on whether or not it is needed is required. Kennedy 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Question

• Why are we rushing to elect a "Committee" so fast, when we haven't properly discussed if the idea of a committee is any good. Personally, I think it's a terrible idea, I somewhat see it as power grabbing, and not something we need. We can discuss things properly, evaluate articles and determine whether they are good or very good, depending on the criteria, and not relying on votes. Steve^Talk 00:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree here, this is much too soon. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Full ACK! In my opinion is such a committee useless. I think, first we should vote whether we want such a committee and then we can elect users for the committee. Barras (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to see some more interest here at last! Yes, perhaps a committee election is premature but maybe the first step is to allow a bit of flexibility in the promotion criteria by which I mean it should be down to one editor or a group of editors to assess consensus? For instance, we have a current oppose to a GA based on a personal preferabce to see an image in GAs. This is an invalid reason as it is not one of the GA criteria for an article to have an image. Chances are that this oppose, under current assessment rules, could be pivotal while unfair. It is, however, just one example of the ways the current voting process is flawed. We should be able to find editors we trust to make consensual assessments. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to elect an article committee, we might as well just elect an ArbCom as well. Cheers, Razorflame 06:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, the two are not related in any way. En.wiki has nominated members to promote featured articles and lists, it works fine. Our voting system (and please stop using !vote because here it really is a vote) is flawed in too many ways for it to continue this way. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. I wasn't really saying that we should elect an ArbCom. -.- Razorflame 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(unident) Agreed. We should decide on that first before we even elect the committee. I will freeze the above discussion for a while and start a new one down here. Chenzw  Talk  09:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

What do you want done next in the PGA/PVGA process?

1. "allow a bit of flexibility in the promotion criteria by which I mean it should be down to one editor or a group of editors to assess consensus" - The Rambling Man

• Support my own proposal. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

1. A committee (of 3-6 named editors), with the "functions" described above;" - Eptalon

• Support this proposal also as it is similar to my own proposal. Either choice will help advance the whole PGA and PVGA issue. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 1: Icon Overhaul

I shall soon enough take a screen clipping of how the icons would look, and how it works. The image above is how Romania would look if the icon code were to be implemented. The code was simply:

<div class="icon" style="float: right; margin-top: 1.25em;">[[File:Crystal Clear action lock3.png|15px]]</div>
<div class="icon" style="float: right; margin-top: 1.25em;">[[File:Fairytale bookmark gold.png|15px]]</div>

This innovative icon system is much easier to handle, since it does not overlap existing icons; rather, it places itself automatically so it would fit next to the icon itself. That way, we don't have to go through the {{icon}} template, and simply add {{vgood}}, etc. The second part of this proposition is to possibly replace (again, I'm sorry!) the icon stars and unite all the protection templates while replacing the protection lock. Here are the stars replicated below:

• 
  Proposed VGA star
• 
  Proposed GA star
• 
  Proposed semi-protection lock
• 
  Proposed full protection lock

Note that the stars will not be pixelated, unlike its current status. Please place all discussions below. Thanks! obentomusubi 05:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I like it. It's simple and elegant, it really gets the point across.

P.S. You should sign your posts :) DefenseSupportParty (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely done. Cheers, Razorflame 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you two! Cheers, obentomusubi 06:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Any idea how these will look with the Modern skin? The current system looks terrible (only half of the icon is typically visible), so I'm curious if this will be an improvement or not for those who use that skin. EhJJ^TALK 12:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell just yet. I'm trying to get it to show, but I think it has to be in MediaWiki:Common.js before I see any successful results. It looks magnificent on the French Wikipedia, and considering I'm basically copying this from them, it should work just fine. Cheers, obentomusubi 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks much better on modern, too. Romania is not FA on fr.wp, but here is a link to one that is using the modern skin: [1] EhJJ^TALK 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The only difference between the French Wikipedia's and ours will be that our icons won't have that white border. obentomusubi 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, I would like more users to make comments about this proposal. obentomusubi 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the templates you mentioned, but the style looks good to me. Very clean. :) FrancesO (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! obentomusubi 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could tone down the brightness of the yellow underneath the lock in the semi-protected icon s there? I'm finding it a tad bright and think it should be like the fully protected icon bottom. Cheers fr33kman ^talk 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reverted the image to the first upload. The server might be trying to fix all of the images currently, but it's definitely more like the fully protected icon. Cheers, obentomusubi 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Who likes my rounded tabs and greater line height? I'm curious to know... obentomusubi 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the first time. I'm not a fan of the increased line-height, but I love the rounded corners. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually took me awhile to get used to the drastic line height increase, but now my eyes have gotten used to it. The rounded corners shall become Proposition 2. obentomusubi 06:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like both-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Can I ursup an account here as on the English Wikipedia? I registered as Queenie (talk page), but have forgotten my password (-_-). I would like to request an ursup if there is one available, can you direct me to the ursup page if there is one? Queeneh (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. Can I turn off SUL for this account? It's so annoying when I'm editing the normal wiki as Queenie but resurface as Queeneh. Queeneh (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. That deals with usurptions as well. :) TheAE talk 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And can I change my SUL? Queeneh (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SUL I think you will have to go to meta to have dealt with. -Djsasso (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. :) Queeneh (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 1: Polling

Polling ends on March 23, 2009.

Support Prop 1

1. Support – I'm the nominator! obentomusubi 05:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support – They look fantastic! I can't see any downside to this besides the tedium of fixing templates. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Weak support Yes they look rather pretty. Kennedy 09:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - The new icons looks good and I hope the other wikis change theirs. Additionally, even if we keep the current icons, perhaps the implementation could still be changed per the proposition. The current method looks terrible on the Modern skin, with half of the icon not visible. EhJJ^TALK 13:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   I apologize for that blunder. I actually created the whole {{icon}} template thinking I was doing something good, but I never tried it out with the Modern skin. When I saw what it looked like, I was disgusted. I hope this works with the Modern skin, because it's not working with me when I apply the Modern skin here. If it does not work when it's implemented, I promise I will find a way to make it work. obentomusubi 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Support - Why not. I agree with Kennedy. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Nice icons, just one thing, we need a full protection icon. Techman224^Talk 00:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, take a look now. I have added a red orange icon signifying full protection. obentomusubi 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

7. Support They look nice and I see no reason not to change them. I do think Rambling Man has a good point below though about interest. FrancesO (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I think that "modernisation" of the icons is a good idea. I understand TRMot's opinion of time, but I think that it's the side trips that we take as a community make this an interesting and fun place to be; otherwise, it'd all be just, well, work! :) fr33kman ^talk 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

   Precisely. I find great joy in thinking of new ideas for this wiki, and I feel more open as an artist here because since the Simple Wikipedia is still small, I feel like I have more of a voice here. obentomusubi 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

9. Weak support - I like the icons, however it seems a bit weird since no other wiki has tried this before. Also, I don't believe fancy icons should be that important. Contributing for more VGAs seem like a more reasonable idea. Just me and my two pennies. :P --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 07:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Weak Support per Kennedy. :) TheAE talk 16:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - no reason not to, and "If it's not broken, why fix it" is a stupid reason to oppose. You fix it to make it better.-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 04:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well said, dear friend! There's always room for improvement! Why settle? is my question. –obentomusubi 04:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Very solid point. If we adopted the attitude of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' we wouldn't have any articles :p DefenseSupportParty (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    Nor would there be any peer reviews. After all, if the article ain't broke, don't fix it. –obentomusubi 06:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    I think the idea is that don't fix unessecary things if they aren't broken. In this case in particular the change will break a large number of templates that will have to be fixed. -Djsasso (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

    "Nor would there be any peer reviews. After all, if the article ain't broke, don't fix it." - nonsense. Peer review is all about people asking for help and advice on improving articles. This is all about "fixing" an aesthetic icon issue that nobody besides Obento has ever suggested needed any kind of change. Once more I find it more than interesting that we have at least 15 people prepared to get worked up about icons whereas the average PGA or PVGA gets around six votes. Sorry folks, this is all the wrong way round. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Frankly, I participate in VGA votes. I cannot speak on behalf of others, but I have participated in the past PVGAs. And, like I have said in the "comments" section, I have never said it was necessary or needed to change the icon. I just feel that the change would make the icons look nicer. The reason why this vote is getting so much attention is because it would make a modification to Common.js. Cheers, –obentomusubi 00:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Once again Obento, I don't direct my whole-hearted surprise in the interest in this poll at you. I just find it continually astonishing that we have three times as many people interested in our icons than our best work regardless of its effect on Common.js. And do you really believe that these people worry about Common.js? Really?? I just want people on this Wikipedia to start getting interested in building and improving a great encyclopedia rather than the fluff around it like icons. No offence once more, there's a time and place for great icons, but until we can continually get decent VGAs, I'm not interested. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    Again, I completely agree with you. I do encourage people to get more involved in votes such as the PVGA and PGA votes. I apologize if my proposition seemed petty or unimportant. But please know that I agree with you, too. I wish more people peer reviewed articles and contributed to the PVGA and PGA processes. –obentomusubi 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

    I don't vote in the VGA and GA stuff for multiple reasons, but "This is more important" is not one of them.-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Prop 1

1. Oppose I think the symbols need to be fairly standard across the Wikimedia universe. Given this project is meant to be for users with a fairly basic grasp of English, wouldn't it make sense if the logos were the same as the ones on their "own language" Wikipedia? Soup Dish (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

   The thing is, although is very common, not all Wikipedias use that star as a featured article star. The French use , the Germans use , the Italians use , the Hebrew Wikipedia uses and so forth. So, in reality, is common, not really quite universal. The only other Wikipedia I can think of that has and for both their good and featured articles is the Spanish Wikipedia. Cheers, obentomusubi 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose no reason to change it. What is fascinating, however, is the level of interest in the icons used to denote these articles while the actual process of creating, reviewing and reaching a consensus on promotion of these articles stirs little or no interest from a vast majority of the community. Who cares what the icons are if the processes that elect the articles aren't working? We can spend our time better. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   I am personally better off doing this type of work than article work. That's all I'm going to say. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it in the future... obentomusubi 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Nothing personal about you Obento, just shocked that people around here care so much more about the icons than the articles or the processes. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   No personal offense taken. :) I just want to make things like these icons a little more streamlined, that's all. ;) obentomusubi 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

3. If it ain't broke don't fix it. What TRM said, let's work on proving those who supported our closure wrong and make this Wikipedia one of the best content wise, having good articles with lots of references. Who cares about what an icon looks like? Get Over It. Cheers, Goblin 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   But, in a way, it somewhat is broken. It doesn't show up on the Modern skin properly. obentomusubi 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   *puts MediaWiki back-end hat on* Modern is a broken skin. It looks good but it has issues with it. *puts SEWP hat on* What was wrong with the old system before all this {{icon}} business started anyway? Nothing. We don't need it at all, imo. Goblin 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   The thing that was wrong with it was that without the {{icon}} template, if, say the page was a semi-protected VGA, it would simply overlap. Overlapping icons aren't good, imo. This system would bypass the current {{icon}} template and would automatically place the icons next to each other rather than on top of each other. The thing is, before it was about the position. Now, it places it as text on top of the header, floats it right. Thus, they're almost like objects and automatically find their place. obentomusubi 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Soooo... if the {{icon}} template was meant to fix it... let's use that. If it's a simple fix of not making the icons over lap, implement it with the current icons. As I said above, we are here to build an encyc, not make it look pretty. If it was going to be pretty they would have created a better skin than monobook... Case closed as far as i'm concerned. Goblin 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

   Problem not necessarily solved... with the current {{icon}} template, like I had said earlier, it doesn't appear properly on the Modern skin. This proposition would solve both problems and make it absolutely problem-free. obentomusubi 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Don't fix what doesn't need fixing. Oppose per the last three opposes and oppose the voting. Razorflame 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

It may just be that I'm logging on and seeing cached results or something odd, but every time I've been online for the past few times, the icons have changed. Can we please return to the original en.wiki icons before a consensus has been established that (1) we need to change the icons and (2) we need to change them to those above. We have a considerable number of templates and articles which now seem out of step with one another with respect to what denotes a GA and a VGA, yet another sign of the unprofessional view with which this Wikipedia will viewed if we don't work hard to fix it. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not saying that we need to change the icons. I included it with this proposition because I feel that the icons I have proposed are, quite frankly, nicer than those from the English Wikipedia. obentomusubi 04:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Until we get a consensus to change the icons we shouldn't. Plus, as per my original request above, could we please return to the original icons of en.wiki until we have reached a consensus to change them. For instance, VGAs have the original star in the top right corner while Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles has the proposed star. The icon for GAs is different in far too many places - see Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles, Wikipedia:Proposed good articles, {{Pgood}}, and (for instance) France. This is very poor and very confusing. All "good article" icons should be the same - I suggest this is fixed immediately or once more we expose ourselves as a totally amateur outfit. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have fixed all of the images on the pages you talked about. Try purging the cache on France, because it appears fine to me. –obentomusubi 04:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, not a moment too soon. Please could we all refrain from changing things that have no real need (nor no consensus) to be changed and doing it in a half-arsed (i.e. incomplete) fashion. Thanks. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for remaining civil and polite during this whole process. –obentomusubi 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Please don't change templates, icons and other article references to such without consensus. It shows the Wikipedia up as amateur and will add weight to its demise. Changing things improperly and incompletely, especially when it is supposed to involve our best work, i.e. GAs and VGAs, is not acceptable. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize if I did "half-arsed" work. I will not modify templates incompletely in the future, as I see where you're coming from. –obentomusubi 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Import rights

Hello, I would want to request import rights to import some warning templates from the English Wikipedia, and possibly some other templates I think would be useful. They can be simplified after. I've been working on twinkle to see what works and what not works, and I want to help out. Techman224^Talk 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll go to Meta and request the rights. Techman224^Talk 13:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Which rights do you want to request on meta? The importer-rights? First please go to AN or an admin talk page. I think admins can import sites. Barras (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm importing lots of templates, like over 100, so I think it would be better if I did it, but I'll notify the admins anyway. Techman224^Talk 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to have consensus before you can request the importer rights on Meta. So far, you have not achieved consensus from the community. Please wait until you have consensus from the community before requesting rights on meta. Thanks, Razorflame 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

How is importing better than just copying from en and attributing in the edit summary? Seems that's what most people do and it works just fine. (It's probably faster, too.) EhJJ^TALK 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I don't have to copy and paste everything. It's faster as I can select which templates to export and then import them all at once. It's better then to copy and paste. Techman224^Talk 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Yeah, sounds fine to me. Let me know when you're done and I'll be glad to simplify some of the templates. EhJJ^TALK 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with you having the rights as long as they are used sensibly. Regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 23:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit tentative to allow this user the import rights because I am not very sure about the intentions. He just failed an RfA, and he asked why I have import rights on my talk page a few hours before this appeared here. This could be a sign of hat collecting, but then again, maybe not. I don't think that I am going to hold you back from the import tool because I believe that you will do fine with it, however, please make sure to say which page you import from so as to comply with the GFDL guidelines. Thanks, Razorflame 08:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It states the source in the edit summary even when full history fails & when it works you get the whole edit history. That's the whole point of transwiki importing. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking into this further, I might be able to make use of import rights, as well. Just a thougth. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need import rights because you already have them as an administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, so I see. –Juliancolton (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

heh, of course. Not sure what I was thinking... –Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you wish to do with the flag, and do you have any experience elsewhere of this (rather powerful) tool? fr33kman ^talk 04:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have experience in transwiki importing from www.mediawiki.org as I have transwiki rights there. And what I want to do with the flag, is well, at the top of this section. Techman224^Talk 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

clarification needed, hello, I have the feeling this is getting a bit confusing here, is the request about getting transwiki rights: importing like sysops can from a predefined wiki specified in special:import (additional wikis can be requested at bugzilla:) or import rights: importing from xml-files that are stored on ones computer (can be generated via special:export) + transwiki (see before). Best regards, --Spacebirdy (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting import rights, not just transwiki. Techman224^Talk 03:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I think the editor knows what to do and can be trusted to do it correctly. fr33kman ^talk 04:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

National team articles (football)

Several days ago, I left Nameless User a note at User_talk:Nameless_User#National_team_articles about the creation of national football team articles. The articles being created are very empty of content and are basically restatements of the title: "X national football team is the national football team of X" with an infobox for the team's coach, World Cup appearances, and leading scorer. He stopped creating this for a little while, but continued today in a mass creation. Should these articles stay, or should they be removed as no content articles? Either way (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No different really than the thousand of stub articles on towns and rivers other established editors are creating. I don't think its an issue they are stubs. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed they are no different than the river or asteroid stubs we seem to be inundated with. However, these articles will probably be expanded by keen editors from the various nations whose teams have a stub. Much more likely than someone expanding an asteroid article. I suggest we keep the football stubs and I'll expand them when I get back. They are, after all, much more likely to be searched for here than 33747 Clingan‎ for instance. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't need to point specifically at a certain group of articles that a specific editor is creating. There are other editors who are making stubs other than me, and like I've stated in the past, stubs are the foundation for making a Wikipedia. Wikipedias are supposed to have stubs, even in wikis like the English Wikipedia because not all the information about a specific topic is known. You didn't have to point specificly at me when you made that comment. You could've made a comment like Either way did, which points at all the editors making stubs. Thanks, Razorflame 01:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you may find that Djsasso mentioned thousands of "stub articles on towns and rivers other established editors are creating". It's just a couple of examples of scores of stubs on things that, in general, the average reader of Simple English Wikipedia may not find as useful as other stubs. Perhaps we should look at en.wiki, determine which of the most hit articles there we are missing, and create stubs for those...? Our "most requested pages" is a bit of joke, it seems to always contain at least to professional wrestling pages. I tried once to make it more rounded and more useful but it was quickly changed. At least national football teams are of interest to millions and millions of people across the world. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you there. People create articles on subjects that they are interested about. My interest just happens to be geography and astronomy :). We'll eventually get the gaps filled in, and you can't argue that people won't look up cities and towns in the United States :D. Razorflame 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, I didn't dispute that. I simply agreed with Djsasso that our current plethora of stubs which includes 33747 Clingan are probably of less use than the stubs being brought up by Either way. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal News

The News section on Wikipedia:Community Portal which is transcluded from Template:Bulletin/News is a bit outdated (Dec 2008). Does someone want to keep this updated or should be just remove it? EhJJ^TALK 03:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say delete it. It doesn't seem all of that necsessary in the first place. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep it, and roll it up with Simple News. We could either modify it to include the latest things in Simple News, or use it as a bulletin for urgent news before SN is released. Thoughts? Goblin 10:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Experts on 1930s America!

Calling all experts on 1930s America! I would like to work with you to expand articles related to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. Please respond here or contact me if you are an expert on these two topics. Thank you! obentomusubi 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Glitch?

Hey, when I'm editing in my userspace, certain things don't work. For example, all of the boxes on my userpage are collapsible, but I don't see the collapse button. However, when I'm preview mode, I see them perfectly. Please help! Thanks! –obentomusubi 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anybody else see the collapsible boxes in my userpage? –obentomusubi 18:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Chenzw  Talk  00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! What was the problem? –obentomusubi 01:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Under "class", you have to add "collapsed" in addition to "collapsible". Chenzw  Talk  01:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It must not have been just that, though, since now my "icons" class is working (only I can see it, since it's in my personal monobook.js). Anywho, thanks a million for fixing it! –obentomusubi 04:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess glitch not fixed. It only works when I purge the cache. If I refresh the page (without the &action=purge), [hide] still doesn't show, and my time isn't positioned properly (with the class="icons"). –obentomusubi 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, you have to remember all these things are monitor dependant and never look the same on two peoples computers. -Djsasso (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... very interesting. I believe it's my account, since when I log out, it's okay. –obentomusubi 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Might have something to do with your customized User:The Obento Musubi/monobook.css? EhJJ^TALK 16:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I removed all of the CSS, purged the cache, and refreshed my userpage, and it still doesn't work. –obentomusubi 19:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Contractions

I just noticed something. Per WP:MOS, contractions aren't acceptable except in quotations. If we're pushing that guideline, it should be followed universally across the most visible parts of the site. However, I noticed something. On the 'Changing PAGENAME' template, there are three instances of the word 'don't', where MOS states that it should be do not.

Don't be afraid to start and improve articles!

Any writing you send to Wikipedia is legally released under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you don't want your writing to be changed, erased, or copied by others, don't send it here.

I don't know how easy it is to fix it, but it's rather flagrant. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: There are also three contractions on the front page. Two instances of "don't", and one "doesn't". DefenseSupportParty (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. Another example of issues here. I found a double hyphen in the intro to the MOS which itself states double hypens should not be used. We need to take care that we are not continually contradicting ourselves on this Wikipedia and not being hypocritical. While we are Simple English Wikipedia, it does not mean we are Simply Amateur Wikipedia. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Once more this shows that the MOS is not usable in its current form. --Eptalon (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, so let us deprecate it and refer to en.wiki's MOS as I suggested. We do it for many other guidelines and policies, why should this be any different? The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with referring to en.wiki's MOS. The MOS should be for all editors, and for a simple english speaker, it would be difficult to comprehend the MOS on en. I agree with deprecating it, but lets do a complete rewrite instead. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for uploading images

Hi, could I invite some more of the community to take part in the discussion for the proposal? There seems to be a fair bit of support for the idea but we really need more of the community to discuss the proposal. Discussion is taking place at User talk:Fr33kman/Non-free content proposal and the entire proposal can be reviewed here. Thanks! fr33kman ^talk 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think simple is ready for this. Synergy 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point when you can upload them to commons? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't upload non free content to commons. This is why en.wiki has the ability to upload other images that aren't on commons. Synergy 20:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I opposed non-free content being uploaded here before, and I'll oppose it until we have a sufficiently big community to monitor their use. Absolutely not yet, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a proposal for all editors, just trusted editors. fr33kman ^talk 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the trepidation here but I think we can overcome this. I personally see the benefits as; a) allows the expansion of articles needing non-free images, b) encourages the creation of said articles, c) gives editors who aren't good at writing articles the chance to contribute more to mainspace pages. People might keep saying that we're too small for this, but I hear someone say "I don't have any thing to do? What can I do today?". This implies that we are large enough that editors (some established ones) don't know whatto do next. Uploading and checking images could help here. fr33kman ^talk 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

<- I see the two basic opposition positions as 1) legal and 2) not enough editors. I don't think that legal issues will be a major problem here. No one is going to be sued because they uploaded a non-free image that didn't meet the criteria; the worst that will happen is that the lawyers for the copyright holder will make a request that the image is removed. We would then, of course, remove the offending image. Regarding not enough editors; the upload flag would not be given to everyone, you'd have to show that you can use it wisely and I think that there is enough editors now to support the limited amount of images that'd be uploaded on a day-to-day basis. enWP has issues with non-free content because it has so many people who are able to upload, restricting the number of editors doing uploads would fix this. I only ask that editors ignore their prior reasons and deal with this proposal as if it were a new idea. Think on it and then tell us where you are opinionwise. Thanks !! fr33kman ^talk 21:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And how do you propose we determine if someone is qualified enough to upload images? Either way (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple ways could be used. Firstly all editors getting the flag would have to agree to have read the rules and criteria, and to agree to abide by them. We could then give the flag to any user who requests it and who has been here for a certain period of time (say two-three months) and who is active (say 25-50 edits per week on average). The average active and established editor has likely shown that they follow rules already and has much more to lose in the revoking of the flag than a new editor. We'd have a three-strike rule in that if an editor abuses the flag three times, they have it removed. Admins who abuse the right would be censured and not permitted to exercise the right to upload; those who ignore that censure are likely not fit to retain the mop period and could go through a desysoping. We could also have a page such as WP:RFRB where the rights grantor reviews the requestor and determines if they are a trusted editor. Since we haven't been using non-free images we'd have to initially trust people based on their other contributions to the project. People who have abused the non-free upload on enWP repeatedly could be excluded from having it here, or given only a one-strike rule upon getting the flag. fr33kman ^talk 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Three strikes seems like far too many for me. And how would a "rights grantor" be determined? would it be a 'crat or what? Either way (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I said three to be kind, but I've no problems with a one or two strike rule. If we take rollback as a case-in-point, we wouldn't take rollback from a user for a first offense. I think that the say should hold true here. As for who grants the rights; ideally it'd be a crat for gratning and revoking, but on seWP I think it could be an admin to both give and take away; we'd need to discuss that futher as a community. This would also cut down on the overhead. fr33kman ^talk 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think the level of trust is about the same as for Rollbackers. I've modified requirements as shown below (as a suggestion).

The primer would explain which images are acceptable (i.e. free goes to commons, non-free must be properly tagged, etc.). EhJJ^TALK 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to limit the number of uploads a user could perform? I think we could realistically allow autoconfirmed users the right to upload 1 (ONE) image per days (24 hours) and not be overwhelmed. After they have shown to upload properly, they could be permitted to upload more than 1 per day (by the flag). Just a suggestion. In my opinion, we should try to set the standards as low as is reasonable and then increase them as needed. This is akin to the idea that blocks are not pre-emptive and that ANYONE can edit wikipedia. EhJJ^TALK 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against any automatic granting of the flag. We need to approve people to be uploaders not simply wait a few days for it to happen automatically. The level of trust here is more than that required for rollback. Rollback is powrful but is unlikely to cause a legal conflict when used; uploader is much more likely to come into conflict with law. fr33kman ^talk 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to support this idea, but might I suggest experience with uploading fair use images at en be a possible criteria for getting this user right? Steve^Talk 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but this community is simply not big enough, and the benefit added by allowing non-free (read: non-commons administered) images is simply too small. --Eptalon (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and sorry to come to the party late on this one. This would simply lead to carnage - en.wiki has hard enough time dealing with the illegal uploads, we simply ought not expose ourselves to this kind of danger. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How many times are we gonna chase our tail with this? He said it would only be given to trusted editors. And and the legality, well actually read, instead of just skimming. I hate having to reiterate ourselves.-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But that's the point, what is said above isn't going to work. You are reiterating something that just doesn't work trusted editors or not. -Djsasso (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And you knowit not going to work how? I've never heard of this idea before nevermind it failing.-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

For all the reasons that have been stated above, and on that other page, and in the other threads that have talked about adding fair use. Whether the user is trusted or not does not negate the legal issues, nevermind how you decide who is trusted or who is not trusted etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that fear is a poor reason not to improve the project. What legal things do you think are going to happen? If copyright is infringed the lawyers for the copyright holder inform the offending website who then takes the image off the site. Copyright law doesn't work in such a way that people go to prison without first being given a chance to rectify the offense. I think that is people are so scared of the legal ramifications we should contant the WMF legal counsel for advice? btw: I can point to textual copyright violations on seWP, I don't see them being removed, nor do I see the lawyers banging down the doors. A copyright vio is the same whether it is text or images. fr33kman ^talk 20:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(un)I'd support if the following were true:

• Autoconfirmed users are not allowed to upload at all without the flag.
• Image upload rights can be removed easily. i.e. one strike and you're out.
• The legal position is clarified by someone in the knowledge. (From someone representing Wikipedia)
• Proper terms and conditions, and the legal position is properly noted.
• Only crats can give out the right. I don't think admins should be able to.

If all this is sorted, you have my support. Kennedy 08:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users can't upload at all? That seems nonsensical; I'd be unable to upload spoken articles. Besides that, I frankly have no inclination to upload images, and I wouldn't really need the flag. No reason to give me power that I don't want/need. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, there was a discussion above to allow autoconfirmed users to upload 1 images per 24hours. Thats what I was meaning. If they had the flag they could upload, if they don't they can't upload at all. I've changed my comment above, thanks Kennedy ^(talk) 11:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. So just to clarify, will this apply specifically to image files, or will I need to get the flag to upload my spoken articles? The spoken articles go in the Image namespace, so that's somewhat concerning to me that editors would need to get an imageupload flag to upload a spoken article. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit users with <50 edits from uploading a spoken article.

Just something to think about. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to basics for a moment. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" If non-free images are allowed, this project will not meet the whole purpose of the project Soup Dish (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

When many many users hear of Wikipedia (certainly true for the press media) they think of one place, enWP. They are able to do it; we'd be able to do it even easier than them! Also, just because someone can't upload an image doesn't mean they can't edit the page. An IP would be able to remove it from use, or even add one they find under non-free content that is already uploaded, they can also ask for an uploader to upload on their behalf. :) fr33kman ^talk 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Today's selected article

Not sure the best place to mention this, so here will have to do. I try to avoid the VGA/GA process, etc, unless there are glaring errors as I personally believe getting articles promoted has more to do with how many friends the nominator has on IRC than the quality of the article.

I do feel the need to say that "getting articles promoted has more to do with how many friends the nominator has on IRC than the quality of the article." seems a tad offensive frankly. It basically says that the people involved in VGA/GA are not trustworthy in executing it; this also has implcations project wide for those users. I don't like it. I've had two nom's, one passed one failed (rightfully so!). I think I've probably gotten the smallest article ever past PGA and I don't feel it had anything to do with friends on IRC (which I only just used for the first time a couple of days ago)! Sorry, to comment on this, but I feel it is warranted, Take care :) fr33kman ^talk 04:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But today's offering is a worry - Cuban Missile Crisis.

Take the second sentence:

In 1959, the new revolutionary government of Cuba confiscated (took over) some American businesses which were producing goods (things to sell) there.

Confiscated does not mean "took over", but rather "took away" while American links to American - should it not be linked to United States?

Also, here:

Castro turned to the USSR, still powerful at that time. He signed a contract with Nikita Khrushchev, the Russian president at the time

The first sentence is odd, akin to putting "The British Empire in 1860, still powerful at the time..." while I don't believe Khrushchev was ever Russian president. Was he not General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union?

There is also a section on "Who won the Cuban Missile Crisis?" - how can a crisis be won or lost?

There are many other problems, some major, some minor, but I won't list them all now. Before I actually do so in the correct place, would anybody object to me listing the article for demotion? Soup Dish (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are right, it's not good writing. You don't need permission to nominate for delisting, be WP:BOLD and I think perhaps you should consider joining the GA VGA process :) fr33kman ^talk 22:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IP block exemption

I was wondering about this, and since there is more vandalism here then ever before, there is a bigger change of colloidal damage by hard blocks. I want to purpose to add a group that has the ipblock-exempt right that allows users to edit even if they are being hit by a hard block. It could be used for people who need it, or it can be issued if the user can be trusted with this right. Also it can be assigned by administrators. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techman224 (talk • contribs)

I don't mind it, but like Commons, I believe it should be assigned by checkusers. We're still small, and the checkusers can check ranges for collateral damages without an issue. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeterSymonds here. I believe that we should only allow CU's to assign the permissions, however, I would not be opposed to the idea of letting bureaucrats assign the permissions as well. Agree, disagree? Also, while we are on this subject, maybe we should consider adding the user group account creators to trusted users to create accounts for users who are currently affected by hard blocks, and that want to contribute to this project constructively. Good idea? Razorflame 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Razors idea sounds good. A group of account creaters would be fine. But the next question is: How we elect this users? Like admins or crat's? I don't know. Barras (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On the English Wikipedia, this right can be assigned by Administrators. Techman224^Talk 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c to Razor) Well, my thinking is not so much about trust. From a practical point of view, administrators on EN make so many blocks a day, that collateral damage is frequent. Admins, thus, need this tool. Here, there would be very little collateral damage, simply because of our low editor numbers. Therefore it's likely that a /16 rangeblock won't affect one person on that range. Checkusers can see the people active on a certain range, and if there is collateral damage, they can assign temporary IPBE without issue. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me PeterSymonds. We can make it checkuser assignable. Also, what do you think about making account creators at this point in time if we are considering adding IPblock exempt? Razorflame 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should allow admins to remove the right only, in case of abuse like vandalism. Checkusers and Bureaucrats are not always available due to our limited numbers. Techman224^Talk 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it even possible for you to do that? I thought that it could only be admins can add and remove, or not assign permissions at all :P. Cheers, Razorflame 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, through $wgAddGroups and $wgRemoveGroups. Techman224^Talk 21:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What do we want

Ok, now that we discussed this, I'll purpose this

We create the ipblock-exempt group with only the ipblock-exempt right in it.

We allow checkusers only to add and remove the new group.

Administrators and Bureaucrats can not remove the right, however if they need to block a user with this right they can block the user directly and they will be blocked.

Discussion

I don't really understand. As a registered user, if my IP address is blocked, can't I still edit regardless? Under what scenario would this permission be used? EhJJ^TALK 16:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Found more info at en:Wikipedia:IP block exemption (a good background for users who are not well versed in this topic). Thanks! EhJJ^TALK 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is kind of pointless to leave the accountcreator group out of this vote because I believe that the accountcreator and ip-blockexempt groups go hand in hand. If we are going to enable one of the groups, we might as well enable the other. Razorflame 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

How do these go hand in hand? One allows users to edit if their IP gets blocked frequently. One allows users to create accounts for users whose IP is blocked or if the user name is too similar to someone else's name. These are no where near the same, and you should never add on to a proposal that someone else has proposed without discussing it with them first. Either way (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we including the Account creator group in this proposal? Techman224^Talk 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I've removed it from the proposal. Razorflame 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support This is a good configuration. Techman224^Talk 19:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   I support both Account Creator and IPBE groups by the way. Techman224^Talk 20:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Great set-up, should be extremely good when it gets approved and put into practice. Razorflame 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - I think it is a good idea. Barras (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Limited support the creation of IP-block-exempt only, and under the condition it is added/removed by checkusers only. (Admins can always block the account of someone who has IP-block-exempt until a checkuser can remove the privilege, if needed.) EhJJ^TALK 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   I'm afraid that blocking a user that has this right will not work. If a admin wanted to block a user with the right it would have to be removed first, then blocked. Techman224^Talk 16:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

   I've heard that if you block the user directly and not the ip, the user will still be blocked. Techman224^Talk 16:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Support both IPBE and Account creator group.-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support IPBE only. Chenzw  Talk  06:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support IP block exemption only. The account creator is certainly not needed here. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Only IPBE. -Djsasso (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Conditional Support IPBE only, under the condition it can only be added and removed by checkusers. I Oppose any other implementation --Chris 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support IPBE only fr33kman ^talk 04:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

#In its present form. I think only checkusers should be able to grant and revoke IP-Block-exemption. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this so that it says that only checkusers can grant and revoke the right. Hope this helps, Razorflame 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and for the record, I totally oppose the introduction of an account creator flag. That really isn't needed here at this time. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose in every form. We don't need either right at the moment. It was years before the en.wp had it, and remember it's much bigger than us. We don't get any requests as far as I know for Account Creation, and if we do then users can easily handle it without by-passing the CAPTCHA and the limit. We don't need IPBE either because how many people are effected by IP Blocks? This is just unecessary and over complicating things. Let's just focus on fixing up content and proving those who supported closure wrong, not finding more rights that people can potentially "collect". Goblin 19:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose the creation of a new account creator tag. All admins (and we have plenty of those) can create accounts. I don't think there will be a need to have anyone else have this ability at this time. EhJJ^TALK 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   We are talking about users being able to create accounts that are too similar to each other. Everyone can create an account from their account if they are not blocked, however we can't create accounts that are too similar to each other. This group allows non-admins access to this. Techman224^Talk 20:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

   That's my point, to some extent. We don't need non-admins to do this when we have more than enough admins! How many requests do you think we get? I doubt it's even 1 a day. EhJJ^TALK 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose addition of account creator. Similar usernames should generally be denied from creation due to fears of impersonation. The main reason why the ACC flag is given to users on EN is due to the limit of 6 creations per day for each IP address. Chenzw  Talk  06:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose per BlueGoblin. I can't see a reason apart from editors wanting another badge to collect Soup Dish (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple is Broken.

It's true. The chief problem I see with Simple is that editors are unwilling to try out new ideas. Not all change is bad, you know. I've seen many proposals, which get automated Oppose - Simple is too small for this or Oppose - I don't like it or Oppose - some other reason. What's wrong with trying out new ideas? If they don't work for us, we don't have to keep the new change/proposal/process. But we will never know if we keep saying NO! to everything. Steve^Talk 05:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)