Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 44

Hello,

I just want to clarify some of our GA/VGA system. Those that edit here for like 2 months will probably know what I write. Originally, we had the idea to make a class of "better articles", much like Featured Articles on EnWP. We called them Very good articles, the criteria were these. With the time we found ourselveswith more and more articles that successfully passed the criteria, but that we weren't happy with. There was a long discussion, here, and we finally settled for the current criteria for very good articles. Good articles also resulted form that discussion, they are mostly our old VGA criteria. Changes to the criteria include: GAs are shorter, and they can contain red links, although not too many. At the moment, I think there are 20 VGAs and 19 GAs. Other introductions were the minimal number of votes (in addition to a support percentage). Our GA criteria are perhaps too strict, seeing that there are almost as many GAs than VGAs.

Something we should probably discuss is how to make sure to get some kind of readability check in there - Jimi Hendrix seems to have been promoted despite some readability issues.

Ideas?--Eptalon (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eptalon, as you know, I've been a critic of the system for a while. On bare statistics, en-wiki has 2,267 featured articles & 993 featured lists and 5,215 good articles (grand total of 8,500 or so out of 2.6m or 1 in 300). So I guess that's roughly a ratio of 2:1 good to featured. Here we're on 1:1 good to very good, as you identify. We have 39 good/very good articles out of 38,400, that's 1 in 1,000. Some things of note for me:

1. The voting mechanism counter-wiki - we ought to be advocating consensus, not votes.
2. The support % + min # of votes results in stupid results, the classic 5 supports is no VGA pass, 5 supports and 1 fail is a VGA pass scenario.
3. Insistence on the absence of red links - even FAs on en-wiki can be promoted as long as red links are kept to a minimum. Here, people get worked up if a PGA has a red link.
4. There's no minimum size requirements on en-wiki's GAs. Why do we have one? An arbitrary minimum readable size just results in fewer PGAs.

Comparing, say, Jimi Hendrix with Red Hot Chili Peppers, you can clearly see a drastic improvement in the quality of VGAs. I'm not sure this is as a result of "improved" criteria or more conscientious and diligent reviewers and editors. Either way, for this situation to to remedied we need to dramatically encourage regular editors to push articles to PGA and PVGA. How we do this, I'm not clear. Revisiting the criteria is essential, but beyond that, we seem to have far too many editors just creating stubs rather than a few high quality articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should make the GA easier to achieve; Personally, a nice thing to have for new year would be 50 "better-quality" articles (read GA and VGA). We are like 11 off that mark. Certain articles (like those mentioned in TOTW) are probably better to extend to GA or VGA. As to the criteria discussion, you know my optinion. In my opinion we need some kind of minimal quorum (whatever it is) to prevent the situation we had before. Homer Simpson and List of California hurricanes were both VGAs. So lets see what the other think. --Eptalon (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with The Rambling Man. I think we should remove the minimum word counts and the voting aspects, but instead make sure articles cover all the major topics. So for example, an article about a film should take about the plot, characters, production, reception. If there isn't much information out there, the minimum word count shouldn't make it fail, as long as you use all the information available. I would like to see some thoughts on changing the criteria in this way. Giggy (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about removing the 1 week period of !voting for PVGA and PGA? Reaching consensus and fixing problems brought up for an article could take longer than a week, especially for a small community like ours. Thoughts? And I also agree mostly with The Rambling Man. – RyanCross (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... so I got tired of the current Main Page design, and wanted something else that will be more "popping". I was wondering what the community thought about this design, based off of en:Main Page. Before we even decide if we should change the design, does anybody else think that the Main Page should be redesigned, mainly to attract more people to visit Simple English Wikipedia then we do now (or before)? Any comments would be appreciated. – RyanCross (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we redesign the Main Page recently? I think we should work on redesigning the GA/VGA processes (see above) as a priority at the moment. Giggy (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rip it of ENWP. After all, people come from ENWP and the first thing they see is "Well, that's a bit stupid. They've stolen our Main Page!". But, if we have our own, that doesn't happen. Microchip • talk 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I really like our Main Page. I think English Wikipedia's is boring. -- American Eagle (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We literally just redesigned it. Give it a chance... Majorly ^talk 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no reason to change it again so soon. It's fine the way it is. — Cheers, Truth's Out There ^–talk– 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, no need to redesign. – RyanCross (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. Sorry for any wasted work you did, though. Cheers -- American Eagle (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. This is more to the users who use IRC a lot -- if you want to fiddle with the statistics I'm making at the moment, please add your details to StatsBot, so I can add more statistics (and make it more reliable). Just click below.

Thanks, Microchip • talk 15:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions: Can you upload pictures as an IP and if you can, how can I? Please answer on my Talkpage. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not allow image uploads; please upload them to commons. --Eptalon (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be logged in, and can upload at this page. For more information, please visit Wikimedia Commons. Microchip • talk 18:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for a IP to have a User Page? Please answer here or on my Talkpage. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. If you want your own userpage, make an account. It's easy and free and doesn't ask for any personal information. Thanks, --Isis♠(talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it technically impossible due to the software, or is it policy? If it's policy, has it been discussed? fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, and the reason is that most IPs can be reassigned to different users on the same ISP, so we get one user one day and another the next, with the first complaining that they've lost their userpage. Archer7 - talk 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and I have one more question (this is the last time I'll be bothering you today): Can IP's get awards for their hard work? If you see my accomplishments, I hope you know what I mean. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are a few IP's on the English Wikipedia who have received "awards". However, it is much easier to recognize a user by name rather than by a series of numbers. Usually IP editors do not receive awards for their edits. --Isis♠(talk) 21:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't mind giving awards, and even barnstars to IP addresses. They can work hard, too. -- 23:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I firmly believe that IPs should and must be treated the same as any named editor. Actions maketh the user, not names. (Although it is true that it's harder to recognize an IP editor.) fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, for starters I award you a free user name here on simple :-) JurgenG (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i'm new here, so tell me if it's been proposed, but i'd like to suggest the following:

1. How about some more sections on the main page? I don't want to turn into Wikipedia:En, but I think that a DYK section, for example, would be a good idea. And of course our criteria would be less stringent.
2. How about creating WikiProjects and Portals as a more defined thing? Portals especially can be used with much usage, and WikiProjects can be used to collaborate editing better (although i don't know how well it is done here at the moment!)
3. The RecentChanges template needs some rationalising, it is way to big! On my desktop, it fills the screen! (I will cross post to the talk page, with another idea!
4. How about having a "reward scheme" or something for editors? I know there are Barnstars, but what about something that is more substantial? It might work better with potential users (say young children) who don't yet grasp a one off award like a Barnstar, but which a different type of scheme (say "WikiPoints" or something) would appeal more, with specific "awards" when a certain amount are collected?

Anyway, that's my $0.02, or £0.0113951 in my local currency ;)

Thanks,

BG7even 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few wiki projects but as of now not one has been moved into the mainspace. The simple truth is there aren't enough regular editors here to run things like wikiprojects, reward schemes, portals and other projects properly. FSM ^Noodly? 14:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Ok, well I take that it isn't a no? I'm prepared to maintain the one project i'm interested in (Transport and sub-projects) and also other project wide projects such as adoption etc.

The same goes for portals and award schemes ;). Even if they are not actually widely used initially, it would still be better to have them on the table for when there are people.

Thanks,

BG7even 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Projects go to users space, portals are probably not worth the effort. Please note, the last count I am aware of, we were slightly under 30 regular editors. --Eptalon (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... ok. I still think it would be better to have some (at least the active ones, as mine will be) in the Project Space. And I think that Portals are actually a good way of brining in new editors and showing people stuff if updated frequently and used well.

Oh, and, er, two more suggestions:

1. How about tagging for WikiProjects as per Wikipedia, but on a simpler level? (I'd guess not from the WP response...)
2. How about a newsletter similar to Signpost (again, different!) that could initally be monthly and then we could take it from there.

Thanks,

BG7even 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my comments, as per IRC: DYK would be good -- there's been a proposal for it already, but, like most things, it fails due to lack of discussion and so lack of consensus. There's completely *no* consensus for portals: everyone on SEWP has different interests, so there isn't a userbase to maintain a portal, with the possible exception of a Christianity Portal. It's possible to use <div class> to choose between different RC designs if it is set up properly (using gadgets, prehaps?), or can be removed entirely. As for the signpost, I've made a little used {{bulletin}}, which is transcluded onto the Community Portal. Oh, and whilst I'm editing ST, could an admin archive this page? 41 headers is a lot of scrolldown. Thanks, Microchip • talk 20:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! I'll draw up a DYK working proposal at some stage, and i'll also make meself a RC template.

As for archiving, can't anyone do it?!?!

Thanks,

BG7even 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can, but normally the archives are protected. It appears I was wrong. Microchip • talk 20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, shall i do it or you? Thanks, BG7even 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Basically, anything goes in your userspace. If you want to create a DYK section, do so in your userspace. If you want somewhere to plan world conquest, do so in your userspace. Try it out, then propose it here after a few test runs. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks ;) I'll set something up over the next day or so and then we can see what people think. Thanks, BG7even 19:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did want a DYK section, but we just don't get enough new content articles to do it. And what Creol brought up lat time, we can't even handle WP:PGA and WP:PVGA very well, so it would just slow our community down if we have to keep track with another place. Like I said before, I'm active at DYK over at en.wikipedia, and it does take some work to properly handle DYK, along with people accurately reviewing articles and article hooks. DYK would be good, but I don't think we need one as much now. I might change my mind, but BG7, you know me fairly well, so if you have any questions about DYK over at en that you might want to propose here, just ask. – RyanCross (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we had DYK I imagine it would literally consist almost entirely of Romanian rivers (I can imagine the tagline: Did you know...that [such and such river] flows into [such and such river]?). alexandra (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL That's a good one. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could easily template that one.. -- Creol(talk) 02:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We could be less prescriptive around the rules for DYK - instead of being "new" articles, they could just be nominated articles that people have been working on and think are interesting and worth developing a hook for. Probably not stubs but maybe don't have to be good articles. A "rule" might be that the factoid in the hook has a reference - ie is verified from an external source. I could generate a few Pakistani River DYKs to provide some balance ;-) DYK may get more involvement than PGA and PVGA which are a bit more daunting perhaps as a standard and editor engagement would be good for the community in my view. --Matilda (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is wrestling notable enough to be included in this proposed DYK section?--  ✧ ChristianMan16  02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Have a look at this. It should change every time you refresh. It is very easy to add something like that to the main page. Kennedy ^(talk) 08:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing for now is to have a process that changes daily? Twice Daily? Or randomates being changed weekly? And any articles that are non-GA/VGA are eligible, provided they are not stubs. I think that would be the best criteria.

Anyway, i'll create something and then let you know here.

Thanks,

BG7even 19:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think GAs should be allowed. They don't get that much exposure elsewhere and as the name suggests, they are good articles. FSM ^Noodly? 19:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds ok. I suppose it depends on what we agree is the best format as well. I'll draw up some suggestions at some stage.

BG7even 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the idea of any articles other than VGAs being allowed - VGAs get their own front page coverage. I would like to see that references are provided as it is something I think we need to encourage here - there could be more attention being paid to WP:Verifiability and this is one way to encourage it. I like the idea of random updates perhaps refreshed daily - the question is balance - not too many rivers and not too many wrestlers and some geographical balance and certainly balance between contributors. I would be happy to help if you want to find subject matter for example and have somebody help develop hooks and verify the hook. I certainly see this a a useful recognition system - and I think that anybody who has contributed to the article featured should be recognised. --Matilda (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! :D.

So, to clarify before I set up a test:

• Hooks are updated daily? Or set up to randomise and change weekly? (The hooks would be different for every viewer, and change every time the cache was purged.
• Any article that isn't a stub, a VGA and has references on the hook is eligible.
• The balance is not too many articles from one anuthor or one subject - as per wp-en's DYK section. (We need to identify our majority audience so we can include slightly more of those)

I should have a proposal drawn up by the end of the day. Thanks, BG7even 07:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i've got a system at User:Bluegoblin7/DYK. Use the links there to navigate. It is (probably) too complicated at the moment so please comment! I just used en-wp and simplified. The main thing I want comments on are the criteria.

Thanks,

BG7even 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unindent Comment on the criteria. At present it states (presumably in line with enwp DYK is not a general trivia section. DYK is only for articles that have been created, or expanded fivefold or more, within the last 5 days. I disagree with this. There is too little activity here. I think any article should be eligible as long it is not a VGA (they have their own publicity space) and the fact(s) is (are) verified with a reference. --Matilda (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What page are you looking at? The criteria should be as I put them above, and indeed are correct at User:Bluegoblin7/DYK/Template talk:Did you know. Please let me know and I ill alter.

To clarify what I have put:

All articles are eligible provided that the hook is referenced and the articles are not stubs nor VGA's, and have not been on the Main Page in the past for VGA. (Articles that have been in DYK before may be there again).

Thanks,

BG^7even 11:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably looking at a now deleted page - ie User:Bluegoblin7/DYK/Wikipedia:Did you know - per an earlier version of your proposal. I am happy with the criteria as at User:Bluegoblin7/DYK/Template talk:Did you know . --Matilda (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think we should pay more attention to the Tranlslations of the week. These articles get translated into many languages, and are probably good candidates for Good Articles. Please have a look at the current translation. I have done some simplification, but I fear it may not be enough. Does anyone think we can get this to Good Article, till tuesday next? --Eptalon (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule about the order in which interwikis go? I prefer to add En first then Fr and De as they are big wikis and rest in alphabetical order. I just wondered if there was definite rule or policy on this. FSM ^Noodly? 18:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical by native language name. -- Creol(talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we put English first on this Wikipedia, seeing how its kinda related? FSM ^Noodly? 18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about this just recently...probably was just archived the other day. But it was pretty strong that no that shouldn't be how we do it. -Djsasso (talk)

I have put Halo 3 up for Good Article again. Last time it failed with no votes in a whole week. Even if it still fails I want to fail properly with at least five votes. So please take a look...cheers. FSM ^Noodly? 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I Twinkle Java Script was recently created and I started to create some pages for it. But then I thought maybe we weren't allowing Twinkle right now. I don't know what we are doing now, Thanks -- American Eagle (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle in and of itself is not a problem. But there are a whole lot of problems with the implementation. We are getting wikiproject pages in the main space section (here), people creating user subpages for other users without any sign of permission from that user and a script that is built to work on en:wp being tossed out there with no changes to match our policies and namings (AFD, CFD, AIV, multiple QD reasons are not ours...). Prior to being implemented, it needs to be properly set up and tested fully (likely in your own .js pages) before being tossed out for general usage. The script is not designed for here and needs to be ported over properly rather than just copy/pasted from en:wp. -- Creol(talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One has tested it on their own monobook and works fine, Can be implemented so that we change the policies to different things on the script which is easy enough and I can do that. WashingManwithwings (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dropping by with some good news. A team of people have been putting together media sets for music biographies. The idea is to provide a recording, a score, and a portrait for as many composers and songwriters as possible. Below is our set for Beethoven.

It's been several months since I've been active on this project. So not wanting to step on any toes, I'll introduce this idea here. The captions could use simplification, of course. Is there a music template on this project that allows easy playback? Best wishes, Durova (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sonata No. 28, Movement I Movement II Movements III and IV Problems playing the files? See media help.

yeah windows media player will play oggs but wikimedia ogg files say "you do not have a player" ~ R.T.G 09:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English: Hello! This is a message to inform all the Wikipedias that there is an ongoing project to fix the errors in the Wikipedia logo. There's also a plan to add more characters in the blank spaces and find characters for the other sides of the globe. Feel to visit the page on Meta-Wiki and discuss it on the talk page. If this message has arrived in the wrong place, please update the distribution list. Thank you, and see you on Meta! Bastique (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this template? I might RfD it. If a user doesnt want to contribute in Simple English and deems it 'superficial' why make an account here? In my opinion it's a useless template and all it does is insult this Wikipedia. FSM ^Noodly? 20:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll RfD it. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me who is the main administrator of Simple Wikipedia is? (I have an idea I want to share with the person, and I think its a winner).24.1.4.241 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing. Try here for the creator of wikipedia. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 01:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is the co'-founder of Wikipedia. alexandra (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have no god. We do, however, have many ones. You see, the Simple English Wikipedia is polytheistic. WP:ADMIN lists a series of them.

Okay, seriously, admins have no more power to implement things than regular users do. If you have a good idea, just post it here. alexandra (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polytheistic? I prefer to think of us as...omnitheistic. Everyone's a god. Join in the party. --Isis♠(talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Mortals are in the VIP, but we're the bouncers, we can block on sight (kick people off for a time). Mortals must QD quaque die, we can simply delete. Also, Isis is already a goddess (goood times), while Cassandra was just a princess, and a cursed one at that. alexandra (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can be the prince that saves you, Cassandra. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you linked WP:RFA. – RyanCross (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I told you how to save me, you wouldn't believe it. alexandra (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can do it. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 02:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I'll do anything for you, or any other admin. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean any other editor, right? It sounds like you'll do anything to only admins, and not non-admins. – RyanCross (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Ric ^{is ShockingHawk} 14:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to know about my idea, I put the message Right Here. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]