Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 60

Good bye

I don't mean this to be cheesy or self centered, but I just wanted the time to say thank you and good bye. The drama of wiki, irc, and the general Internet has gotten to me, and SB39 is going to retire. Haha, that sounded weird. Oh well. I want to thank many people for making this past ~13 months a blast for me. I'm sad to be leaving and I will take with me many great memories, fun times, and great friends. Congratulations to everyone for making Wikipedia such a good place. I'll miss you. Cheers, ѕwirlвoy ₪ 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really have to leave? Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a long story, yes. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 22:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything, are you, Yot? I'm willing to read a story. Anyway, good luck in your future endeavors, man!-- † CM16 ^{t _c} 22:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, it's a maturity thing and stuff. For some reason people hold grudges, and it's just not worth it anymore. Heh, oh well. Again thanks. This is probably my last edit. I just realized Shap is gone too. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 22:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity you can't expand on your issues but good luck in whatever you do. You will always be welcome here. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TRM, you'll be welcomed back here. :) Goodbye! TheAE talk 22:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't come back, good luck IRL. Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 09:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

{{BS}}

Would anybody object if I removed this redirect and used it for Rail Lines, as (imo) it should be. I'm happy to clear up all the links to it with a bot if everyone is fine with it. I'm planning on starting adding these maps to our rail articles (and its also used on Waterways, Tramways, Metros etc) so it would be easier for me if I could use it as BS rather than having to define a new scheme for them. This redirect is also pointless imo anyway.

Apologies for the jumbled-ness of the post!

Cheers,

Goblin 15:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be used for rail lines? I don't see the connection between bs and rail lines? -Djsasso (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It stands for "Bahnstrecke" (German for "rail line") and relates to all of the diagrams being in German as well (at Commons). I don't see why BS=Barnstar either, i'd never abbreviate it as that... If people are that opposed then i'll use {{BS1}} but {{BS}} is easier and also relates to other templates in the series, such as {{BS2}}, {{BS4}}, {{BS-table1}} etc. Goblin 16:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh its not that I care, but I just didn't see how bs would be a template that someone would think to use for rail lines. I still don't really see why it would be a useful name for a template if its based on german language. BS for BarnStar is atleast a somewhat obvious abreviation, but like I said I don't think it matters, but I personally would name a template to atleast be relevant to the info contained in it in english. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm fair point. TBTH i'm not that fussed either, but it does make life easier as some of the templates are very complex and it will mean having to make several changes ;) I'll wait for more input. Goblin 17:59, 15 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)

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)

Spoken Articles

I noticed that there are barely any spoken articles on Simple Wikipedia, and was wondering if there is any interest in getting some recordings done. If there is, I can start plugging away at it in a couple of hours, but if there is truly no interest in having spoken articles, I won't bother.

Also, if there is interest, I would love some suggestions on what articles to start with. I'm thinking about starting with VGAs, but I'm open to any articles. Respectfully, DefenseSupportParty (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of spoken articles, especially on this wiki. My thought were the same: start with VGAs and then GAs as they are less likely to need drastic overhauls in the near future and are, presumably, well written. The reason I say "presumably", is because, after starting to turn Saturn (planet) into a spoken article, I realized that, despite its VGA status, it has poor flow and is difficult to read out loud. I haven't looked at the other articles, so I hope it is an isolated case.

Additionally, I would like to also turn the VGA stubs into audio clips and hope to get them somehow on the front page. Once there's enough audio, I'd like to promote the project in that way, otherwise I think people who could benefit from listening as they read will miss out. EhJJ^TALK 13:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the points. It is pointless doing articles below GA because they may well need further changes.

Many of the earlier VGAs are not in as good condition as some of the more recent ones, so it might be a good idea working on them first.

I also think it would be a good idea to record the VGA stubs, and i'd be happy to help get them into the stubs.

I'm going to draft up a project in my user space for this, as I think that it is a good idea! I'm also open to anything that people want me to read.

Regards,

Goblin 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

We actually have spoken articles, the last one being recorded in August 2007 (see Special:NewFiles). Chenzw  Talk  13:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'm going to run to the store to pick up a new microphone, and start on Geisha immediately. I saw the page, but I noticed there were not that many, and interest had seemed to die down, so I figured I would ask. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I'm curretly uploading violin which I'cve just recorded. Regards, Yotcmdr ^{=talk to the commander=} 14:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. I do VO work and I have access to pro-grade equipment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Start whenever you get a change :) DefenseSupportParty (talk) 17:00, 16 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)

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)

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)

   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) Striking; just be bold and fix it. Goblin 13:19, 21 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)

3. 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)

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)

(<-) At the moment, our MOS is not used anywhere - it would therefore be easy to deprecate the current version, and re-work it. As we are not using it currently, there is also no use in referring people to EnWPs MOS.--Eptalon (talk) 11:50, 21 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)

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)

Are we going to end this discussion soon, I've seen that the last comment was made on March 19. I think that this should be closed as successful as I haven't heard any opposes. I would like someone else to close this soon. Techman224^Talk 00:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a number of hesitations, and don't see a strong enough mandate in my opinion to suggest this is a successfull request. -Djsasso (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Djsasso here. There is not enough of a consensus to promote the addition of a new right to a user. I believe that both me and NVS both had at least 5 or 6 people in support of granting the rights, not just the 1 or 2 that I find here. Razorflame 00:46, 23 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)

I think it's time to close this proposal, and with (when you look at the oppose and support reasons), there are 11 supports and 2 opposes to IPBE. And also it has been a week and no one has edited this section. Techman224^Talk 14:38, 21 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  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)
11. Support IPBE only. Simple does not need the Account Creator flag at this time. --Fairfield Deleted? 13:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support IPBE. — RyanCross (talk) 06:50, 22 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)

   What exactly are you opposing, and why? If you're opposing the ACC flag, fine, but IPBE presents some usefulness in that non-admins can edit over an IP hardblock. That certainly isn't flag collecting. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Bug filed at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18086 - go vote for it! Goblin 19:34, 21 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)

For the most part, I have to agree with this statement. We do tend to fall back on the old, tired, tried excuses. We have just passed another proposal to close; let's do something to really show em!! :) fr33kman ^talk 05:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We could "really show 'em" by producing quality articles and not worry about trifling matters like what icons to put in the top corners of articles and the like. Either way (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't disagree with this statement!! I've always said, mainspace is where we live or die! fr33kman ^talk 06:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've experienced this personally with Proposition 1 (see above). I don't think it would harm anybody, and a chief concern is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I believe I came here to make things even better than they currently are, or at least try to incite some change in the community. Metamorphosis is a beautiful thing, it is. –obentomusubi 06:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(To Either Way) My proposal would not only change the icons, but it would fix the placement of icons. It is beneficial. Please point out to me how fixing something is damaging or worth opposing. –obentomusubi 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OM, someone recently informed me with regards to an RFA disucssion on enWP that if an admin makes a single admin edit per month, they have helped the project. I'd like to extend this to all editors. If any editor makes a single useful mainspace edit per month (week, year ... ) they have been a net gain for the project. fr33kman ^talk 06:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't refute that statement at all. I'd like to think I've made some beneficial changes this month. I have created about three or four pages, and have done a peer review on Romania. –obentomusubi 06:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my view on the matter. We are a very, very small encyclopedia. It is because of this, not in spite of this, that we have the ambition to grow. This presents an interesting dichotomy—what is an acceptable rate of growth without losing focus on what is truly important?

Simple Wikipedia is still on training wheels, and we're like a ten year old that wants to drive a car. We think we can do it, and the car keys are right in front of us. We may be able to safely drive the car, but is it really worth taking the risk of losing our focus? I'm not referring to the simple aesthetic changes that are being voted on, but the fundamental changes of the encyclopedia policy.

That being said, you are correct. We need not resist, but rather embrace change. The problem lies in too much change, too quickly. I urge all editors to be cautious; the bottom line is that the encyclopedia is about articles. Cheers. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your moderate views are enlightening. –obentomusubi 06:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else believe simple.wiki is almost becoming a bipartisan community (i.e. people like me, and people who believe that it should be solely on articles right now)? I really see a certain (not battle, but...) feud (?) between the community. It's almost like the liberal/conservative, Democratic/Republican, capitalist/communist clash. I personally don't want that on our wiki. Let's all be able to see both sides so this doesn't get comparable to politics. (not saying politics is bad; we need to be more open-minded, myself included). –obentomusubi 06:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah!! Look, let's be serious for a minute here. Mainspace is our lifes-blood. Without articles we are useless and should just pack it in. But ... that doesn't mean there is not room for pretty-ing up the joint at the same time. Fine, some editors will never be good mainspace article growers, but then some mainspace editors will never be very good at the fluffy or non-mainspace side of things. We have editors here who do nothing but pretty the place up; but ... we also have admins here who hardly ever contribute to mainspace. We need all-sorts!!!!! (me 2p's worth) fr33kman ^talk 06:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the main argument lies in the beautification of the project; it lies in radical policy proposals such as the image uploader. Prettying up the place isn't a bad idea, nor is it something that should take much though. However, knocking out a wall to put something in should really be considered very carefully. Cheers. DefenseSupportParty 06:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, "it takes all sorts" or was that Clinton with "it takes a village!?? :) ; We need moderates, conservatives, libertarians and radicals included. No one ideaology should be allowed to reign supreme; that's too 1984 for me. For me personally, fair-use images would allow the vast expansion of many articles. fr33kman ^talk 06:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on every point you mentioned. I am not all that great with creating original content. I'm just not. But I can do the infoboxes, I can do the proper referencing, I can do the behind-the-scenes stuff. Just a note, my icon proposal was not meant to detract at all from the mainspace. It was supposed to add flair or "professionalism" to the main space. Cheers, –obentomusubi 07:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

@fr33kman: I don't think Big Brother would appreciate your crimethink :P

In all seriousness though, I agree: I just think that people are rushing. I think change is healthy, but I just want it moderated. I understand that fair-use images would be a huge tool that we could use, I just fear that it won't be used responsibly. DefenseSupportParty 07:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can understand where you're coming from also. –obentomusubi 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your neutrality is disturbing me greatly :D DefenseSupportParty 07:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what being (semi-)Buddhist is about! –obentomusubi 07:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-buddhist is a tad like "a little bit pregnant", isn't it? :) fr33kman ^talk 07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, it's a really long story. If you e-mail me, I can tell you more. –obentomusubi 07:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

@DSP, (CrimeThink?! Where, who, not me; anything but room 101!!!) Seriously, though! Of course we need moderation, but let's not stiffle a project out of fear. fr33kman ^talk 07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But, in all sincerity, I proposed this same topic a few archives back (remember?). I still there think there's a hesitancy of change. It sort of offends me that people view my icon thing as unimportant. But, hey, that's democracy, and I love it. ;) –obentomusubi 07:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a democracy" :) fr33kman ^talk 07:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Let us throw off our shackles of opression and overthrow the opressive dictatorship of Jimbo Wales. Pax Wikipedia! DefenseSupportParty 07:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Θʃ cʘυʀςε! –obentomusubi 07:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of opposition and the icon stuff, when is a reasonable time to close the vote? I think people are done voting, so we could close it now... but I set it for one week. I thought that was more than enough. Thoughts? –obentomusubi 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think consensus has been reached. 11-4 is pretty much the entire active user base :p DefenseSupportParty 08:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Of 30-odd users? - look this discussion here is rather pointless:

• we do have GA/VGA-process no one is interested in
• we do have a did you know section that lacks contributions;
• certain editors only discuss things on talk pages like this one.

Personally, I don't care if the symbol on good articles is a pink fluffy bunny, and on VGAs it's a purple one - But I agree that in the interest of these articles being easy to recognise we'd rather use symbols that resemble those other Wikipedias use. We were recently featured in a web-comic, what did we gain from it?

In short: We should show people we can do something, even though we are only 30-odd users. Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your final point, but without any example of action, I don't understand by what you mean. I'm not posting this to be inflammatory by any means, but simply to garner your viewpoint. We have no clear direction of action, and we really need one. Cheers! DefenseSupportParty 12:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't say no to everything, alot of stuff does change here when it fits within our mission plan. The things that continually get shot down are things that are "myspacy" and detract from the main purpose of this encyclopedia. And I think that is for a very good reason, the more time wasted on that stuff the more surely the wikipedia won't grow. Image uploading is a completely different thing, to be honest I don't know that even en.wiki should have it due to the huge amount of issues and time that it ends up creating. There are simply no articles that need a fair use image, are there some where it might make things easier? Of course there are, but that easiness in the article comes with a cost that is simply too high for our current community to deal with. If we had a thousand active editors then maybe it wouldn't be an issue (although its an issue at en.wiki with many thousands of editors). If anything I think the lack of fair use images actually forces us to be more creative and in the long run it makes the wiki better for it because we are forced to write better articles to make up for the lack of pictures. As far as the placement of icons go, it seems that you are the only one who notices they aren't placed properly...I have used all skins and never have I seen any of the issues you seem to complain about. Which is why I think you are getting alot of the if it ain't broke don't fix it comments. Making the icons all pretty doesn't necessarily make the wiki better, infact I think having big bright flashy icons can actually detract from the information in the article. But I don't care enough to oppose or support those changes as long as you go through and fix he few hundred templates you are going to break with this change. -Djsasso (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fixing all of the templates will be a given. –obentomusubi 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

VGA system...

Hello all,

please note that we haven't promoted any article to VGA status for almost a month; there are currently also no candidates listed. If you come across an article that you think would meet the criteria, please list it.--Eptalon (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Random thought about the VGA/GA and all: why don't we transwiki some of English Wikipedia's featured or good articles, then work downward to simplify them? Why build from the ground up when we could find well referenced, good articles that just need their wording fixed, and their redlinks filled? Either way (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to write an article form the start up, and not transwiki, and simplify. --Eptalon (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Romania was taken from the English Wikipedia and simplified enough that it became a VGA here, so I don't see what the big problem is with letting users take articles from the English Wikipedia and simplify them enough for use here. Cheers, Razorflame 19:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think whichever works best should be used. Cheers, –obentomusubi 19:58, 21 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)

What browser are you using? That can nearly always impact on things such as drop down boxes. Ta, Goblin 13:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Firefox... and it's not just with the boxes, it's with my local time, too. obentomusubi 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so people are getting really irritated...

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.

---

...about the new icons. Look, we had a vote. It was voted in favor, 11-3. I don't want to follow the English Wikipedia on this one. After the proposition, I was almost absolutely sure I wouldn't comment anymore about the icons here, as I know it bugs some of you guys no end. Trust me, I don't want to send a million messages about the icons. I thought since I was done doing the overhaul, that was that. But I have learned not anybody is in favor of the icons or of my choices, I guess. obentomusubi 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find another icon that looks nice to you, please add it to the gallery below. Let's have a composite of different icons juxtaposed next to each other. See this category on Commons for more ideas. Peace and love, obentomusubi 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Current VGA icon
• 
  Russian VGA icon
• 
  English VGA icon

• 
  Current GA icon
• 
  Blue version of the Russian VGA icon
• 
  Another possible GA star.

I actually liked using the normal English VGA icon, but that's just me. — RyanCross (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea is quite clever and I don't mind it, but my criticism is that it looks a bit dull. obentomusubi 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like us to use the English Wikipedia's icon for VGAs and the icon that I just added for GAs. Cheers, Razorflame 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that these new icons look too "unprofessional" especially on our very good article pages. The color and gradients need to change to make it look more professional and less like something out of Kirby's Dreamland. Either way (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.